Daycare 2005

Appendix A
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF WINDSOR
SOCIAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT
MUNICIPALLY FUNDED
CHILDREN’S SERVICES SYSTEM REVIEW
September 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................ 4
Report Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 6
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 10
1.1 Background ....................................................................................................................10
1.2 Purpose, Goals & Objectives ......................................................................................10
1.3 Manager Interviews.....................................................................................................11
1.4 Site Visits ....................................................................................................................12
1.5 Best Start Impacts.......................................................................................................12
2. THE MUNICIPALLY FUNDED CHILDREN’S SERVICES SYSTEM . 14
2.1 A COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM OF SUPPORTS ...........................................................14
2.1.1 Municipally Operated Centres .................................................................................14
2.1.2 Child Care Fee Subsidy...........................................................................................17
2.1.3 Special Needs Resourcing Program ........................................................................17
2.1.4 Ontario Early Years Centres (OEYC) ......................................................................19
2.1.5 Wage Subsidy .........................................................................................................19
2.1.7 National Child Benefits Savings ...............................................................................20
3. DATA COLLECTION ........................................................................ 21
3.1 KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS ...................................................................................21
3.2 FOCUS GROUPS ..........................................................................................................24
3.2.1 Parents and Caregivers ...........................................................................................24
3.2.2 Special Needs .........................................................................................................25
3.2.3 Child Care Operators & Agencies ............................................................................26
3.2.4 City Children‟s Services Staff ..................................................................................27
3.3 CONSOLIDATED MUNICIPAL SERVICE MANAGER INTERVIEWS .............................27
4. DATA ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................... 31
4.1 CHILDREN SERVICES DIVISION MANAGEMENT .......................................................31
4.1.1 Community Leadership............................................................................................31
4.1.2 Division Leadership .................................................................................................32
4.2 DIRECTLY OPERATED CHILD CARE CENTRES & SERVICES ...................................34
4.3 CHILDREN SERVICE SYSTEM MANAGEMENT ...........................................................38
4.3.1 Special Needs Resourcing Program ........................................................................38
4.3.2 Child Care Fee Subsidy Program ............................................................................44
Figure 4: Child Care Fee Subsidy Select Budgetary Item Policy Comparison ...........................46
4.4 ONTARIO EARLY YEARS .............................................................................................51
4.5 NATIONAL CHILD BENEFIT ..........................................................................................52
5. BEST START ................................................................................... 54
5.1 CONFIGURATION OF THE BEST START NETWORK ..................................................54
5.1.1 Best Start Steering Committee ................................................................................54
5.1.2 Best Start Implementation Committee .....................................................................55
5.1.3 Working Groups ......................................................................................................56
6. APPENDICES .................................................................................. 59
Appendix 1: Steering Committee Membership ..........................................................................60
Appendix 2: Key Informant Summary ........................................................................................61
Appendix 3: Parent Focus Group Summary ..............................................................................69
Appendix 4: Special Needs Providers Focus Group Summary ..................................................73
Appendix 5: Parents of Children with Special Needs Focus Group Results ...............................79
Appendix 6: Agency and Licensed Child Care Provider Focus Group Summary .......................82
Appendix 7: Staff Focus Group Summary .................................................................................89
City of Windsor Children‟s Services System Review 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the City of Windsor for funding this project. Special
thanks to Teresa Piruzza, the Project Coordinator who was an invaluable resource in tracking
down requested items and planning the very successful focus groups and Susan Oates-Telfer
the note taker at all of the focus groups. Thanks also to the members of the Children‟s Services
System Review Steering Committee. This review required participation from children‟s services
stakeholders and it should be acknowledged that the child care centre operators in the City of
Windsor and County of Essex, Ontario Early Years Centre program operators and deliverers of
special needs services provided valuable insights and guidance to the content of this report.
Many parents also took time from their summer activities to attend evening focus groups to
provide their input. A significant amount of data was collected as a result of everyone‟s
combined effort, thereby supporting the development of this summary report.
Finally, thanks to other municipalities‟ children services staff that participated in interviews and
discussions conducted throughout the course of this review.
Protected Under Joint Copyright
©City of Windsor, ADW Consulting and Pauline Lewis & Associates Inc. 2005
No part of this document may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means – graphic, electronic or mechanical, including
photocopying, electronic transmittal systems, or information retrieval systems without the prior written permission of all parties. ADW
Consulting and Pauline Lewis & Associates Inc. give permission to the City of Windsor, Social Services Department to reproduce
the material in whole or excerpts of the material for their own purposes, to amend the material or excerpts at their own discretion,
and to provide a copy to MCSS, but neither may distribute it to other municipalities.

Executive Summary
The City of Windsor has managed children‟s services within the boundaries of the City of
Windsor and the County of Essex since the devolution of the management of Children Services
to Consolidated Municipal Service Managers (CMSM) from the Ministry of Community and
Social Services. Since devolution in 2000 there has been a restructuring of the Children
Services Division senior level of management accompanied by a vacant General Manager
position of the Social Service Department. The vacant General Manager position has now been
filled permanently.
In 2004 the Social Services Department planned and completed a review of the Ontario Works
Division. It has subsequently embarked on this strategic review of its role in the management
and delivery of Children‟s Services.
The goals and objectives of the review were defined as:
Establishing the role of the municipality in the direct delivery of child care centres
Establishing the role of the municipality in the direct delivery of Ontario Early Years Centres
Establish a service system management role in the development of community partnerships
Establishing a recommended model for the delivery of special needs resourcing within the
confines of available funding
Establishing a recommended framework for a local Best Start Network
Establishing a recommended Children‟s Service Division organization structure to support
implementation of program recommendations (to be a companion document to this report)
The review consisted of interviews with key Children‟s Services Division personnel, community
leaders, focus groups with parents who use children‟s services and focus groups with city staff
and community providers of children‟s services. Other Consolidated Municipal Service
Managers were interviewed to collect information on common issues, identify best practices and
review different approaches on common service delivery issues. Further, key internal
documents and relevant research reports were used to inform the review. The information is
summarized in the report and the recorder notes from the focus groups are included in the
Appendices.
The collection of information about the overall management of the Division and the position of
the Division within the greater Children‟s‟ Services System in Windsor and the County of Essex
led to the identification of four general themes.
A lack of consistent strategic leadership within the Division

The City of Windsor is perceived to be in a conflict of interest as the system manager and a
direct operator of services
The culture of the Department has previously been autocratic and controlling, which created
significant animosity between the City and numerous community providers
The program skill and expertise within the Division is significant resulting in the development
and maintenance of some extremely high quality and innovative programs
The report also found that the previous restructuring of the Division had intensified the
appearance of a conflict of interest. This restructuring created manager portfolios that consisted

of program delivery and system management responsibilities related to the operation of the
Ontario Early Years Centres and the administration of child care fee subsidies.
It was also found that the City operated child care centres are programs that are very important
to maintaining the quality child care in the County of Essex and City of Windsor. However, the
City operated child care centres are not recovering operating costs from the revenue obtained
by these centres. This is similar to municipally operated child care centres throughout Ontario
and locally similar to the St. Clair College Child Care and the Canadian Auto Workers Union
Child Care Centre. All of these child care centres are subsidized by their operators with
additional funds. The child care community stated in the information collected that the City
should continue to deliver licensed child care programs. The report concurs with this statement
and provides further details substantiating this recommendation. Recommendations are also
made to improve business operations, reduce costs and increase revenues.
There are 3 methods of delivering services used by 10 providers across the City and County to
include children with special needs in licensed child care programs. These are „travelling
resource teachers provided by Children‟s First, 9 individual child care centres have on-site
resource teachers on staff and the Children‟s Rehabilitation Centre operates an inclusive pre-
school program. This program approach has evolved locally and is neither necessarily reflective
nor consistent with the delivery approaches in other jurisdictions in Ontario.
In site visits, focus groups and parent meetings the information collected indicates that all three
are valued programs. However, the report has found that 10 different providers of this service
operate in silos, without common levels of service and a common assessment intake process
and the entire program is under funded. Due to this lack of integration parents have found that
licensed child care centres “cherry pick” amongst children with special needs and often only
good luck insures they find appropriate service. The report also discovered that the City in
managing the program has not required the providers to operate in an integrated fashion.
The report recommends the full integration of special needs resources to improve the inclusion
of child with special needs throughout early childhood education program sin the City of
Windsor and County of Essex. The report recommends that special needs resources should
be delivered through a centralized delivery agent, Children First and that the inclusive pre-
school program delivered by the Children‟s Rehabilitation Centre should continue to be funded.
Further, standards for program delivery are recommended based on current successful itinerant
resource teacher programs.
Information collected indicates that program providers and parents view the City‟s delivery of
child care fee subsidies as inconsistent, outdated and overly bureaucratic. Information collected
illustrates that the City‟s application of discretionary has become outdated, unfair and arbitrary
when compared to other Consolidated Municipal Service Managers. Recommendations are
made to improve levels of customer services, reduce paperwork and create fair levels of
discretionary budget limits.
Collected information about the Ontario Early Years Centres indicates that these are valuable
programs that should continue and expand under the new children‟s services initiatives. The
combination of City and Community delivery of these programs is viewed as positive strength.

Report Recommendations
The following are the recommendations presented by this report.
Recommendation 1: That the Division establish annual goals and objectives that
guide work plan development.
Recommendation 2: That the Manager portfolios be realigned to clearly separate

system management responsibilities from program delivery responsibilities.
Recommendation 3: That all Divisional job descriptions be updated and that

management positions by clearly accountable for the financial management of their
portfolio of program responsibilities.
Recommendation 4: That all Divisional management staff receive financial

management training.
Recommendation 5: That the Division enhance its policy and planning capacity to
support program delivery and system management.
Recommendation 6: That the City continue to directly operate municipal child care
centres, provided each operation is determined to be viable according to newly
established occupancy rates.
Recommendation 7: That the Division establish an occupancy rate policy and further
that a transition period be defined to enable centres to reach established rates.
Recommendation 8: That the Division conduct a comprehensive business review

and financial audit of each municipally operated child care centre including an
examination of but not limited to the following:
the ability of the operational capacity to support the centre operations based on
the present fee structure
the use of local fee structures where this makes sense
the use of temporary and permanent staff
the tendering of general and capital maintenance
the feasibility of the location in light of revenue, costs and the Best Start
guidelines
business practices related to fees, billings and collection

Recommendation 9: That the business reviews culminate in the development of
business plans for each centre, that Centre Supervisors execute and update on an
annual basis to eliminate the $469,053 deficit between now and 2008.
Recommendation 10: That the Division establish a goal of holding the municipal
child care centre operations to the benchmarks established in the 2005 municipal
budget, while it concurrently conducts a more complete financial audit of individual
municipal child care centre operations.
Recommendation 11: That management staff be required to develop a plan that

details how salary and wage increases as required by the new Collective Agreement
will be managed over the term of the Agreement.
Recommendation 12: That the operational costs of the Work and Learn Program be
quantified and paid to each participating Centre through National Child Benefit
Savings. Further that the savings in Ontario Works financial expenditures produced
by Work and Learn should be quantified and reported semi-annually.
Recommendation 13: That a management function be designated to manage child

care centre program costs on a macro level.
Recommendation 14: That the Division support the development and delivery of a
training strategy to increase inclusivity and operators skills in working with children
with special needs.
Recommendation 15: That the Division co-ordinate a staff exchange program

between Children’s First, the Children’s Rehabilitation Program and licensed child
care providers to provide workplace based experiences related to working with
children with special needs.
Recommendation 16: That funding for the delivery of special needs resourcing
services be consolidated and that Children First continue as the delivery agent of an
itinerant resource teacher delivery model. Further, that the Children’s Rehabilitation
Centre continue to receive funding to deliver the pre-school program.
Recommendation 17: That special needs resource services and associated training
should be made available to improve the levels of inclusion in Ontario Early Years
Centres, Family Resources Centres and other early childhood education programs
that are not operated by a school board.

Recommendation 18: That Early Learning and Child Care/Best Start funds be used to
establish a fund to support a Staff Ratio Enhancement Program to assist licensed
child care operators to more effectively meet the needs of children with special
needs. Further that this fund be managed by Children First.
Recommendation 19: That the Division create and Chair an “Inclusion Task Force,”
with representation from appropriate stakeholders to guide the implementation of
the special needs recommendations contained in this report.
Recommendation 20: That the delivery and management of the Fee Subsidy
Program be considered a program delivery function, while the management of
Purchase of Service Agreements with Child Care Providers continue to be treated as
a system management function.
Recommendation 21: That the Division review the monthly budget items ceilings and
establish revised ceilings that are a fair reflection of the present cost of these items
in Windsor and Essex.
Recommendation 22: That the Division simplify the Child Care Fee Subsidy
application and eligibility determination process by delegating file approval to the
caseworker level.
Recommendation 23: That upon receipt of the new income testing guidelines, the
Division amend its approach to the delivery of the fee subsidy program, further
developing service standards and delivery policies consistent with OW division
standards.
Recommendation 24: That the responsibility and management of the delivery of

informal Ontario Works child care return to the Ontario Works Division upon the
completion of administrative changes.
Recommendation 25: That the Division develop a plan that details how salary and
wage increases as required by the new Collective Agreement will be managed over
the term of the Agreement without negatively impacting funds currently available to
community providers.

Recommendation 26: That the Division establish common units of service, common
program goals and operating policies to guide equitable funding and consistent
monitoring of all funded Early Years Centre Services.
Recommendation 27: That the management, supervision and operation of early

years centre hubs and City operated satellites should occur locally through the child
care centre supervisors to improve the effectiveness and flexibility of both
programs’ use of existing ECE staff and the seamless delivery of services as
required through Best Start.
Recommendation 28: That the Division develop a central policy process to inform
the children’s service system management of systemic issues identified through
community input that could be addressed through the use of all program funding
envelopes.
Recommendation 29: That the delivery and management of NCB funds should be
considered a system management function.
Recommendation 30: That the Division adopt the proposed Best Start Network
structure to guide local Best Start decision-making and implementation planning.

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The City of Windsor has managed children‟s services within the boundaries of the City of
Windsor and the County of Essex since the devolution of the management of Children Services
to Consolidated Municipal Service Managers (CMSM) from the Ministry of Community and
Social Services. Since devolution in 2000 there has been a restructuring of the Children
Services Division senior level of management accompanied by a vacant General Manager
position of the Social Service Department. An acting incumbent filled the vacant General
Manager position in August 2004.
In 2004 the Social Services Department planned and completed a review of the Ontario Works
Division. It has subsequently embarked on this strategic review of its role in the management
and delivery of Children‟s Services. This review of Children‟s Services arrives at a time of
opportunity for change. The recently announced enhancement of licensed child care and early
child development programs by the Ministry of Children and Youth Services through “Best Start”
and the filling of the General Manager position on a permanent basis provide new opportunities
for evolution and transformation within the Children‟s Services Division.
The review was managed by a Steering Committee comprised of City staff and staff from
agencies providing services to families and children (Appendix 1).
1.2 Purpose, Goals & Objectives
The purpose of the study was to conduct a review of the municipally funded children‟s services
current operations. The municipally funded and managed children‟s services system is
comprised of:
Purchase of Service Agreements with Licensed Child Care Operators to accept children of
parents who receive a fee subsidy
Ontario Early Years Centres (OEYC)
Purchase of Service Agreements with community agencies that provide OEYC services
Child Care Fee Subsidies
Provision of funding to support the delivery of special needs resources to accommodate
children with special needs in licensed child care
A Wage Subsidy Program for staff working in licensed child care programs
Early Learning and Child Care Funding; a licensed child care stabilization and enhancement
program, that will now be replaced by the Best Start Program
The National Child Benefit Savings and Windsor Community Children‟s Fund.
The goals and objectives of the review were defined as:
Establishing the role of the municipality in the direct delivery of child care centres
Establishing the role of the municipality in the direct delivery of Ontario Early Years Centres
Establish a service system management role in the development of community partnerships
Establishing a recommended model for the delivery of special needs resourcing within the
confines of available funding
Establishing a recommended framework for a local Best Start Network

Establishing a recommended Children‟s Service Division organization structure to support
implementation of program recommendations (to be a companion document to this report)
Figure 1: Municipally Funded Children Services System Summary
Program Description Annual

Budget
Special Needs 3 Program Deliverers: $ 2,801,276
Resources Children‟s Rehabilitation Centre – Pre-School
Program
Children First – Agency Based Resource
Teacher Program
9 Resource Teachers (employees of individual
child care centres)
Licensed Child Care 112 Licensed child care centres $ 4,888,650
Purchase of Service 60% - non profit
Providers 33% - for profit
(this information was 7% - municipally operated
accurate as of May 1 licensed in-home child care program with 33
2005 when provided licensed homes
and may have changed 6,473 full time equivalent spaces
since then) Purchase of service agreements with 45
licensed child care providers (includes in-home
provider)
Ontario Early Years Four directly operated Hub programs with: $2,104,337
Centre Programs 8 directly delivered satellite programs
7 community operated satellite programs
Wage Subsidy Subsidies distributed to operators to pay $ 4,221,439
directly to staff
Child Care Fee Child Care Fee Subsidies - 240,000 full days of $7,859,640
Subsidies child care subsidized
Ontario Works Child OW Child Care Subsidies – 44,000 full days of $1,570,576
Care Subsidies child care subsidized for eligible OW
participants
National Child Benefit 2004 NCB Savings $1,659,725
Savings and Windsor 2004 WCCF $ 381,964
Community Children‟s
Fund
The recommendations contained in this report have been informed by the data collected both
locally and from best practices described in reports and active in other jurisdictions in Ontario.
Local conditions were investigated through input from staff, managers, community agencies and
parents of children pre-natal to age 6.
1.3 Manager Interviews
The 2003 restructuring of the Social Services Department senior management level resulted in
the elimination of a dedicated Executive Director position to lead the Children Services Division.
This responsibility was placed within a combined Ontario Works – Children Services Executive
Director position. In a recent (spring 2005) Departmental review of the Ontario Works Division
and program, Children Services responsibilities were combined with Housing under an

Executive Director. Effective August 2005, the 3 Children‟s Services Managers report to the
Executive Director of Housing and Children‟s Services. The Managers of Family Strengthening
and NCB, Municipal Child Care Centres and Services, and the Children‟s Services System are
responsible for the day-to-day management and operation of the division. Each manager was
interviewed to develop insights into the scope of programming, staffing and issues related and
impacting on the strategic current review. The information gathered in the interviews was also
used to begin to analyze the interrelationships of these three key leadership positions within the
Division.
1.4 Site Visits
Site visits were conducted over a three-day period to gain additional insight into the issues,
realities and perspectives that would have to be explored through a document review, focus
groups and interviews. Municipally operated and community agency operated services were
visited. Included in these visits were non-profit, for profit and municipally operated child care
centres, municipally operated and agency operated Ontario Early Years Centres and the
Children‟s Rehabilitation Centre (a special needs resource provider).
Many other programs were visited as the result of the focus groups and interviews that were
conducted later.
1.5 Best Start Impacts
Prior to the beginning of this review, the Ministry of Children and Youth Services announced the
Best Start Initiative. This is the program that the Ministry will use to implement programs for
children in response to the recent agreement with the Government of Canada, which is
providing approximately $700 million to Ontario over the next five years to enhance early
learning and child care opportunities for families with children 0 – 6 years. Best Start funding
replaces the temporary Early Learning and Child Care Funding program. The program is
expected to address capacity and program issues within the children‟s services system that
have evolved over the past 15 years.
Best Start is a comprehensive, evidence-based early learning and care strategy designed to
help give Ontario‟s children the best possible start in life and help them achieve success in
school. This will involve the creation of a 10-year developmental plan. Best Start is distinct from
other initiatives in that it:
Will help parents and families – regardless of individual economic or social circumstances
Responds to the clear message from communities that Ontario needs more integrated
accessible services for young children and families
Focuses primarily on meeting children‟s and family‟s needs by strengthening, enhancing,
building on and integrating existing programs and services – rather than creating new
structures or organizations
Asks all existing organizations that provide services for children from the prenatal stage
through to Grade 1 – regardless of which ministry funds them -- to share their expertise, and
plan together
Is community driven: the provincial government will set out the types of evidence-based
services that should be available to children and families across Ontario and
targets/outcomes for those services, but the planning for how those services will be
delivered and integrated will be done by the communities based on each community‟s needs
and strengths.

This report presents a recommended planning framework to guide the creation of a Best Start
Network and local planning. Further, recommendations take into account the Best Start
Guidelines and opportunities that this new initiative creates to enhance and develop the present
system of services.
Concurrent with Best Start planning, Consolidated Municipal Service Managers are required to
update their Child Care Service Plans for 2005/06 to reflect the gaps and service overlaps
according to the major components of the child care system; Child Care Fee Subsidies, Wage
Subsidies, Special Needs Resourcing, Resource Centres, and Early Learning and Child Care.

2. THE MUNICIPALLY FUNDED CHILDREN’S SERVICES SYSTEM
Meetings with the Steering Committee, the Project Manager and Children‟s Services Managers
assisted in the development of this summary of the present municipally funded children‟s
services system. Documents were provided by staff based on their opinions as to what
information was required to be well informed about the Children‟s Services programs,
management and delivery system before embarking upon the review. Steering Committee
members also provided a series of key documents that provided critical background information
necessary to develop focus group discussion guides and interview guides. This section provides
a summary of current programs and services.
2.1 A COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM OF SUPPORTS
The City of Windsor Children‟s Services Division is the service manager for municipally funded
children‟s services in the City of Windsor and the County of Essex. Therefore, it is subject to two
local approval mechanisms in the absence of a regional level of government. The goal is to
provide a continuum of quality services and supports to children and families that are family
centred, co-ordinated, accessible, flexible and publicly accountable. Division planning reports
often state that the continuum of services and supports should be flexible, inclusive and
responsive to needs, choices and preferences of families.
A comprehensive child care system has been developed across the City of Windsor and Essex
County. A mixture of non-profit, for-profit and directly operated programs comprises 113
licensed child care centres, excluding the Children‟s Rehabilitation Centre, a segregated
program. The licensed child care capacity in Windsor/Essex County provides 6,473 full time
equivalent (FTE) spaces for various age groups (i.e. infants, toddlers, pre-schoolers and school
age). Of these spaces, approximately 1,090 are subsidized (750 purchased and 340 directly
delivered). Great Beginnings is a non-profit provider that operates a licensed home child care
program in addition to licensed centre-based child care. This home child care agency has a total
of 33 approved homes, with all but a few of the homes being located within the city limits.
2.1.1 Municipally Operated Centres
The City of Windsor operates 8 municipal child care centres with 2 satellite locations and 2
alternate satellite locations. A primary goal of this review is to provide recommendations as to
the role of the municipality in directly operating child care centres. Child care centres deliver
early childhood education programs and the operations are generally expected to be dependent
on revenues from fees paid by parents. The successful operation of a child care centre in
Ontario requires a balanced business plan that addresses both program needs and revenue
needs. Information was collected on the financial structure of the Municipal Child Care Centres.
Many reports on child care reflect on the low levels of pay associated with working in a child
care centre. In Ontario, parents‟ fees finance child care; therefore operators are caught between
the parent‟s ability to pay and the need to provide quality education and child development
programs. Municipal operators have traditionally offered programs that addressed children‟s
developmental needs by insuring that certified Early Childhood Educators (ECE) are used to
deliver the programs. Further, municipal operators have also paid a salary equivalent to the
importance of the job in order to retain experienced well-trained staff. Municipally operated
centres could maintain this approach through direct operating grants within the former provincial

child care funding structure. It should be noted that the use and retention of qualified ECE staff
addresses two key indicators of quality child care trained ECE staff and good staff retention.
These indicators were identified in “You Bet I CARE! Caring and Learning Environments:
Quality in Family Child Care Across Canada”, a study and report published by the Centre for
Families, Work and Well Being, University of Guelph. It should also be noted that the Early
Years Study Report (1999, M.N. Norrie, J.F. Mustard) presented research showing that quality
child care programs are an important early learning component.
The abolition of the „approved corporation” and direct operating grants by the Ministry of
Community and Social Services at the time when children‟s services were devolved to municipal
management altered, significantly, the financial structure of municipally operated child care
centres. The figure on the following page presents financial information associated with each
City operated Child Care Centre. The Figure portrays the reality that the municipally operated
centres operate at a deficit in terms of revenue versus operating costs. At present, a budget
surplus in the Child Care Fee Subsidy Program is used to cover this deficit. In many
municipalities that do not have a surplus in the child care fee subsidy budget, this deficit is
covered by 100% municipal funds. Locally these centres are not the only ones that do not
recover their full costs from revenues; St. Clair College Child Care Centre and the Canada Auto
Workers Child Care centres receive subsidies from general college funds and employer
contributions. As well, local non-profit operators often have to raise funds through fund raising
activities to cover expenditures that fee revenues cannot address.
The use of child care fee subsidy surplus funds for the purposes of offsetting operating deficits
does not conform to the intent of the Ministry of Children and Youth Services funding guidelines.
However, it is our understanding that the City is not alone in the application of this practice.
While a strategic plan for the management of children‟s services exists, municipal child care
centres are not required to develop business plans. Further, no formal goals or targets are set
for occupancy. However, the City has set the 2005 budget for municipal child care centres as
the benchmark for maximum operating costs.
At present, all municipal centres are more than 15 years old. Operating Ontario Early Years
Centre Programs from municipal child care centres has been a method to optimize the use of
vacant space as well as provide this program within the integrated context described by The
Early Years Report.

Figure 2: 2004 Municipal Child Care Centres Information
% of Annual
Space Ratio
Annual FDE
Occupancy
Capacity in
Capacity in
% of Loss
Operating
Operating
Operating
Municipal
% of Rev.
Licensed
Licensed
Licensed
Revenue
Revenue
Revenue
Loss per
Cost per
FDE per
per FDE
spaces
Centre
Space
Costs
Loss
Rate
FDE
FDE
FDE
FDE
per
Lauzon / *101 57 76.0% 11,704 13% 116 $624,798 13% $6,186 $53.38 $745,152 $63.66 -$10.28 $120,354 21%
Lassaline
Wyandotte 58 44 73.5% 8,445 10% 146 $478,476 10% $8,250 $56.66 $656,954 $77.79 -$21.13 $178,478 31%
College *46 41 69.1% 6,424 7% 140 $385,672 8% $8,384 $60.03 $426,814 $66.44 -$6.40 $41,142 7%
Glengarry 60 48 87.4% 10,904 12% 182 $687,007 14% $11,450 $63.00 $703,622 $64.53 -$1.52 $16,615 3%
Jefferson / *152 104 93.0% 25,584 29% 168 $1,382,996 28% $9,099 $54.06 $1,494,807 $58.43 -$4.37 $111,811 19%
Roseville
Amherstburg *56 36 81.0% 7,557 9% 135 $356,598 7% $6,368 $47.19 $479,296 $63.43 -$16.24 $122,698 21%
Leamington *39 39 63.0% 6,390 7% 164 $327,760 7% $8,404 $51.29 $331,884 $51.94 -$0.65 $4,124 1%
Tecumseh 59 49 89.0% 11,598 13% 197 $645,342 13% $10,938 $55.64 $630,524 $54.36 $1.28 -$14,818 -3%
Total 571 418 88,607 100% $4,888,650 100% $5,469,053 $580,403 100%
LEGEND * Indicates that an Ontario Early Years Centre Hub or Satellite program operates with the licensed capacity
Licensed The capacity in spaces that are licensed for each physical % of revenue The percentage of total annual revenue earned by each
Capacity site by the licensing authority, the Ministry of Children and centre
Youth Services
FDE full day equivalent, the standard measure used to Revenue per Centre revenue divided by licensed capacity
represent a full day of child provided to one child licensed space
Operating The capacity of the centre according to programs offered Revenue per FDE Centre Revenue divided by annual FDE provided
Capacity in FDE
Occupancy Rate The rate to which the programs offered where full Operating Costs The annual cost for operating each centre
Annual FDE The total number of FDE provided in each centre through Cost per FDE The cost of providing one FDE according to each centre
the programs offered
% of annual FDE Each centres proportion of the total annual FDEs provided Loss per FDE The cost of one FDE minus the revenue earned for
by the City of Windsor Child Care Centres providing one FDE, a negative amount indicates more
revenue than costs in providing the FDE
FDE per The ability of each Centre to use its space according to its Operating Loss The annual operating loss of each centre
Licensed Space license A negative amount indicates a centre that produces a
ratio surplus
Revenue Revenue from all sources for each centre % of Loss The percentage of the annual operating loss produced by
each centre

2.1.2 Child Care Fee Subsidy
Child Care Fee Subsidies are provided to parents in need as determined by regulations set by
provincial legislation. The mandate for the program is set by the Day Nurseries Act and
Regulation to provide fee subsidies to low income parents that require child care in order to find,
accept and maintain employment and attend school or training programs. Local discretion is
provided by the regulations for CMSM‟s to deliver the program respecting local conditions. The
process of application and case management is provided by a Child Care Fee Subsidy Case
Manager. Each case manager carries a caseload of approximately 250 cases. The average wait
time for an initial application appointment is 2 weeks.
The Children‟s Services System Manager manages the delivery of this program. City staff
determines eligibility for fee subsidies and the City maintains legal agreements with licensed
providers to which the subsidy is paid directly. Parents pay a portion of the child care space fee
directly to the licensed child provider.
An annual budget surplus has existed since 2000. Surplus funds in this budget area can and
have been previously directed to licensed child care providers to apply to “health and safety”
needs. Health and safety funds have been used for minor capital improvements and
replacement and to increase staff ratios. The surplus has also been used to subsidize the
operating deficits of the municipally operated child care centres. In 2004, surplus funds for
health and safety needs were not available to community operators due to the operating deficits
of the municipal child care centres.
Child Care Fee subsidies are also funded through the Ontario Works programs. Ontario Works
participants that have dependent school aged children can receive assistance with the cost of
child care provided they are participating in approved activities. Subsidy funds can be used to
offset the costs of licensed or informal child care as selected by the parent. The Children‟s
Services Division manages this program as part of the Child Care Fee Subsidy program.
The combined annual budget for both programs is $9,560,765.
2.1.3 Special Needs Resourcing Program
The mandate set by the Day Nurseries Act (D.N.A.) for the special needs resources program is
to provide the funds necessary to enable children with developmental delays to attend child care
programs. Special needs resources are delivered by the Children‟s Rehabilitation Centre,
Children First and individual child care centres that hire on-site resource teachers using funds
provided through this funding envelope. In addition, child care operators can apply for additional
funding through this budget envelope for support staff to serve children with special needs. This
program remains in transition with a recent (2003) amalgamation of services, which created
Children First. Further, the Children‟s Rehabilitation Centre, which has historical origins as a
segregated pre-school program, has integrated this program as a workplace based child care
using centre based resource services. The Centre itself has been designated as a “Centre of
Excellence” by the Ministry of Children and Youth Services and has been awarded capital
expansion dollars.
Historically, special needs resourcing has been under funded in relation to the demands.
Program funds have not been increased for 10 years. Present annualized funding is $
2,801,276. As an interim method to address the funding shortfalls of this program, funding was
increased under the Early Learning Child Care program.

While a valuable and important funding envelope, provincial requirements on the use of these
funding dollars have limited flexibility. Ontario Early Years Centres children‟s programs are not
currently eligible to access these program dollars. The program is funded in isolation of other
service components such as speech and language services, occupational therapy etc. that
provide important components to the ability of the early child development service network to
provide inclusive licensed child care as a realistic development option for children with special
needs. Funding shortfalls in speech pathology services for example limit the effectiveness of the
special resource dollars paid for resource teacher services.
Research
Research in the early childhood education field has now begun to focus on success factors for
the inclusion of children with special needs. It is important to note that the term inclusion is used
to define the accessibility of the child care program and the special needs services required by
the specific child.
Accessibility of the child care program relates to the physical site, the classrooms and the
attitudes of the administration and staff towards accepting children with special needs. The two
special needs service delivery models in existence are typically defined as that of either an
itinerant resource teacher or that of an on-site resource teacher. In addition, research shows
that on-site resource teachers are often used interchangeably with program assistants to simply
increase the staff ratio in the classroom.
The following success factors in integrating children with special needs into licensed child care
settings are drawn from a reports entitled: “Inclusion: The Next Generation of Child Care in
Canada” and “Creating Inclusive Communities.”
 There is a strong relationship between inclusion quality and overall program quality
 Inclusion quality is strongly related to centre, director and staff characteristics
 Quality of human resources within centres is critically important for inclusion quality
 On-site resource teachers do not necessarily support system inclusion quality (i.e., those
centres without on-site resource teachers will refuse to accept children with special needs)
 Addressing staff ratio in the classroom is a very important factor in creating an inclusive
program
 Child care centres require strong partnerships with resource support professionals
 Inclusion is promoted in centres when there are trained staff, time for planning and
consultation and support from resource specialists
Other Important Data:
 Estimated average annual out-of-pocket expenses for a child with special needs $1,569
 50% of low-income families of children with special needs had out-of-pocket expenses of
$150 /month
 In 64% of two-parent families, 1 parent lost or gave up a paid job to provide care to a child
with a disability
 There are inadequate transportation supports to child care, to school and to institutions
 Each special needs child will have a unique developmental path
 ECE‟s receive inadequate preparation to work with children with a broader range of
developmental needs

2.1.4 Ontario Early Years Centres (OEYC)
The Ontario Early Years Program receives $2,104,337 of provincial funding annually and has
not had a program fund increase since the development of the centres. This program is
comprised of four hub centres that are directly operated by the City of Windsor. Hubs are co-
located in the following locations:
Amerhertsburg Child Care Centre

Jefferson Child Care Centre
College Child Care Centre
Leamington Child Care Centre
Directly operated satellite programs are located at:
 General Brock School

 New Canadians‟ Centre of Excellence Inc.
 St John the Baptist Catholic School-Belle River
 Holy Name Catholic School – Essex
 Harrow Senior Public School – Harrow
 Kingsville Public School- Kingsville
 Benson Public School – Windsor
 Lassaline Public School - Windsor
Other satellite programs are provided by:
Drouillard Place Ontario Early Years Satellite

Franco-Sol Ontario Early Years Satellite
Grandview Ontario Early Years Satellite
Great Beginnings Ontario Early Years Satellite
St. Clair College Ontario Early Years Satellite
St. Mary‟s Family Learning Centre Ontario Early Years Satellite
Bloomfield Ontario Early Years Satellite
Direct delivery provides the City with the ability to directly influence the program goals and to
make sure that these are co-ordinated with the other component parts of the children‟s services
system. However, this also presents a conflict of interest and has been one source of ongoing
tension between the community provider sector and the City.
Site visits indicate that the City has made good use of existing facilities by operating the hub
programs from municipal child care centres. Organizationally, municipal OEYC locations are
managed as separate entities from the municipal child centres with which they are co-located.
While City staff work in the centres, child care ECE‟s report to the Child Care Supervisor, while
OEY ECE‟s report to a Family Strengthening Supervisor.
2.1.5 Wage Subsidy
The Wage Subsidy Program was created to provide the ability to child care operators to
enhance the salaries they pay to their staff. Historically, the program has been under funded
within the context of providing the ability to providers to pay salaries equal to the importance of
early childhood education. Many reports have underscored the importance of addressing the
systemic low wages paid to staff that work in licensed child care programs as necessary to raise

the ability of centres to hire and retain qualified staff. The Early Years Report findings reflect that
the importance of the early childhood educator is equivalent to a primary school teacher. The
only licensed child care programs in Windsor and Essex County that pay early childhood
educators salaries that approach the levels of pay in the primary school system are the
municipally operated centres, St. Clair College Child Care Centre and the Canadian Auto
Workers Child Care Centre.
The current annual wage subsidy budget of $4,221,439 was recently enhanced through the
Early Learning and Child Care Funding initiative. The Ministry of Children and Youth Services
through the Best Start initiative has proposed to address the systemic issues related to
remuneration through the creation of a College of Early Childhood Educators.
2.1.6 Work and Learn
The municipally operated child care centres operate an employment development program
called Work and Learn. This program provides mentoring, work site training and life skills
development to disadvantaged sole support parents in receipt of Ontario Works. Since October
1997 the program has served 188 participants; 157 found employment and 13 returned to
school. Out of these 170 successful participants, 126 left Ontario Works and a further 44
reduced their Ontario Works payments through finding other income. While providing
considerable savings and financial benefits to the Ontario Works program through “target
achievement” and reductions in financial assistance payments the full costs of providing this
program have not been quantified, nor is a payment provided by Ontario Works for the benefits
accrued. Perhaps more importantly, the savings to the Province of Ontario, City of Windsor and
County of Essex through reduced financial assistance payments are not quantified on an annual
basis. If those participants that left Ontario Works stayed off of social assistance for two years it
is estimated that a minimum of 2 million dollars has been saved since 1997. Accurate case
tracking and data investigation could reveal that the savings are considerable more than this
minimum.
2.1.7 National Child Benefits Savings
All Consolidated Service Managers are responsible for the reinvestment of savings from the
claw-back of National Child Benefit payments from eligible Ontario Works financial assistance
recipients. In the City of Windsor the City NCB savings management is combined with the
management of the Mayor‟s Windsor Children‟s Community Fund. NCB Savings from Ontario
Works expenditures in the County of Essex are returned to that municipally for its‟ use.
The program goals for the reinvestment of these savings are to:
1. Meet the basic needs of children and their families having to live with low incomes.
2. Remove barriers for low-income families that prevent them from achieving social and
economic independence.
In the spring of 2005, the City released a call for proposals to distribute these funds. The
evaluation of proposals is nearing completion.

3. DATA COLLECTION
As noted in the introduction, the review was designed to examine a range of issues and thus a
combination of methodologies were applied to collect the data required to support the
development of recommendations. Seven methods of data collection were incorporated into the
project design to ensure that the widest possible range of perspectives was considered. Data
used to inform the recommendations was collected from the following sources:
A review of current services and delivery model approaches

A review of documents provided by the Steering Committee deemed necessary to inform
the review
Interviews with selected Consolidated Municipal Service Managers (CMSM‟s)
Focus Group discussions with staff, agencies, child care operators and parents
Key Informant Interviews with City Children‟s Services staff and community organization
staff
Site visits of child care and OEYC operations
Meetings with various agencies and providers of special needs resourcing services
A summary of the findings and common themes from each are described in this section.
3.1 KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS
A format for semi-structured key informant interviews was developed and interviews of
approximately 1.5 to 2 hours in duration were conducted with 10 individuals. Key informants
were selected by the Steering Committee and provided the interview questions in advance of an
in-person interview. Five of the individuals interviewed were from external organizations offering
services in both the City and the County and five individuals were municipal staff working in the
Children‟s Services Division. A complete list of individuals interviewed is reflected in Appendix 2.
Specifically, key informant interviews were designed to expand the amount of value of
information related to a series of issues including: the management and administration of
municipally funded Children‟s Services programs, the delivery of licensed child care, fee
subsidy, the delivery of OEYC services and Special Needs Resourcing.
The following represents a summary of the information collected from key informants in the
areas probed. A more detailed summary of the key informants interviewed and their
contributions is contained in Appendix 2.
3.1.1 Management and Administration of Programs
 The majority of individuals reported that until recently, the culture of the Department had
been autocratic, controlling and often confrontational in nature
 Previous administration characterized by centralized decision making
 9 of 10 individuals reported that there was a recognizable shift to a more collaborative
approach to working with the community
 Staff reflected that internally, the culture has shifted away from micro-management to a
more inclusive and empowering environment, where program decisions have been
delegated to appropriate decision-making level

 New relationships emerging both internally and externally
 City appears to be making much more of an effort to encourage open dialogue and growth
of community programs
 Staff reflected that more frequent and inclusive management meetings will lead to improved
planning efforts and have a positive impact on their ability to provide appropriate supports to
community partners
 Individuals noted that the Children‟s Services Division is extremely active in providing a
range of supports to agencies serving families and children including but not limited to:
information, training, leadership, advocacy, flexible hour child care, student placements, etc.
 In total, those interviewed listed 17 different types of activities that the Division currently
engages in to support agencies
 The majority of those interviewed desired enhancements to the level of transparency in the
system by sharing more information regarding the distribution of funding to support the
licensed child care system
 Most desired the City to continue to provide the necessary leadership to expand the system
 Most reflected the need for the Division to continue to improve its working relationships with
the child care community through open dialogue and developing more intense one on one
relationships with agencies based on trust
 Other suggestions for change included: simplify process for submitting budgets, continue
access to subsidized training opportunities, accommodate special requests from agencies
(where possible), provide additional hands-on support to new operators establishing new
centres (i.e. board training, how to establish a per diem), etc.
 Internally, staff unanimously reported a lack of cohesive goals, standardized processes and
organizational practices, compounded by intermittent communication and the need for more
active leadership in the Division
 Staff reflected that mechanisms to ensure more dialogue and collaborative planning across
the three management areas should be a priority
3.1.2 Delivery of Licensed Child Care
 7 of 10 informants strongly believe that the City should continue to directly operate child
care centres
 1 informant reflected they did not know enough about directly operated centres to comment
 2 informants believe the City has a role to manage the system but no need to directly deliver
The following issues were raised as the rationale for a continued role in direct delivery:
 The City is recognized as a community leader and has been a strong role model for quality
child care for the community (i.e. municipal standards of delivery exceed requirements of
Day Nurseries Act)
 The majority felt that management fulfils a key role in maintaining and enhancing strong
links in the early childhood field and politically necessary for system growth
 5 of 10 noted that the City should continue to access funds available to ensure directly
operated centres have the necessary funds to sustain a healthy quality child care system
 Directly operated centres offer stability to the child care system and provide appropriate and
fair wages for ECE professionals in the community
 Other reasons for a continued role include the Division‟s access to planning and
demographic data to support planning to meet local needs and access to leading edge
research and best practices in the profession, which are subsequently shared with
community of providers

 In total, 15 different reasons to substantiate a continued role in the directly delivery of
licensed child care were put forward
 2 0f 10 providers did not perceive any negative impacts if the municipality were to
discontinue the directly delivery of licensed child care, further suggesting that a reduction of
municipal services would increase the funding available to purchase of service operators to
develop additional spaces
 Alternatively, 8 of 10 respondents perceive a considerable negative impact ranging from
lack of parental choice, the potential for a reduction of licensed spaces if other providers
choose not to operate in some locations, the potential for diminished quality, diminished
wages, less mentoring of field placements, less opportunities for integration of children with
special needs, less extended hour and flexible care options, etc.
3.1.3 Fee Subsidy
 The majority of respondents believe there are opportunities to improve the current delivery
of fee subsidy
 Most describe the system as complex and workload associated with ongoing case
management is increasing due to applicants with multiple and frequent changes to
circumstances
 50% suggested the fee subsidy application process be decentralized to better support
families
 Some noted inequities in eligibility for fee subsidy for families of children with special needs
– some parents are needs tested, others are not
 Those interviewed reported that families describe long wait times for subsidy application
appointments
 Respondents noted that many families report that the process is intrusive, cumbersome and
time consuming
 Most believe there is a need to streamline the application process to support quick access to
subsidy for those entering or re-entering the work force
 Many suggested that fee subsidy policies should be developed and consistently applied to
eliminate perceived subjectivity of decision-making
3.1.4 Delivery of Ontario Early Years Programs
 Eight of 10 informants reported that they believe the City should continue as the lead
agency delivering OEYC services and perceived only negative impacts if they discontinued
delivery
 The remaining 2 informants believe that OEYC programs and services should be delivered
by community based agencies and that the OEYC budget could stretch further (additional
locations, services, families served) as community agencies overhead costs are lower than
City costs
 City has a long history of demonstrating leadership and investing in early years – starting
with development and implementation of ELF centres, which morphed into OEYC
 Many of the reasons for continuing to deliver OEYC services echo those for continuing to
directly operate child care centres (leadership, advocacy, accountability, infrastructure
supports stability, etc.)
 4 of 10 saw opportunities for additional agencies to participate/partner in the delivery of
OEYC services depending on site specific circumstances thereby creating more of a
balance between community and municipal delivery

 Suggestions for enhancements in OEYC services included: expand hours of operation,
expand programming choices, introduce services in other needy areas, provide equal funds
for all programs based on a per diem or unit costs for various services, etc.
 Those interviewed reflected a range of challenges to integrating more children with special
needs into licensed care including but not limited to: insufficient funding for support staff,
more children with pervasive developmental disorders (i.e. autism), more children with
communication disorders that are accompanied by disruptive behaviours, parents requiring
more information and support, insufficient support to providers of school based before and
after school programs
 5 of 10 did not believe the City was getting best value for its special needs resourcing funds
 4 of 10 did not know enough about the program, funding and delivery approaches to
comment
 The majority felt that the funds directed to the current travelling resource model were
insufficient to provide the level and frequency of support needed by centre staff
 Most reported that the on-site resource teacher model has caseload equity flaws and is an
expensive model in a community where demand is greater than supply
 5 respondents supported the expansion of the travelling resource model suggesting that it
has the ability to service more children than alternative models
 7 respondents noted the need for additional funding for support staff
 2 respondents felt strongly that block funding should continue to be directed to Children‟s
Rehabilitation Centre as it was believed that this agency provides a level of support to
disadvantaged and developmentally delayed children that other centres cannot
3.2 FOCUS GROUPS
Focus groups were arranged with the following key stakeholders: parents, licensed child care
providers, agencies serving children, special needs resource providers and parents of children
with special needs. In addition to these focus groups, Children‟s Services Division staff were
also invited to participate in a focus group. The City of Windsor arranged each session and
invited participants. Each focus group included a discussion guide that was given out to
participants and was facilitated by a member of the consulting team. Discussion guides were
developed to ensure that data was collected to inform each area under review. The City of
Windsor provided support staff to take notes during each session.
3.2.1 Parents and Caregivers
Two focus groups were held to collect input from parents and caregivers regarding their
experiences with licensed child care and recommendations for improvements. Dinner and free
child care were provided in order to encourage attendance. Despite the focus groups being held
in the summer, which is normally a difficult season to obtain parent participation, a total of 47
parents participated in the focus groups. Appendix 3 contains a full record of the discussions.
The following are the common themes drawn from parent feedback:
 The child care fee subsidy system is inconsistent in its application of policies
 The child care fee subsidy system has unfair ceilings
 Waiting lists and lack of available spaces have restricted use of licensed child care spaces

 Parents look to safety, quality of the program, staff credentials and the reputation of the
centre when they choose a child care provider
 Whether the centre is municipally operated, a non –profit provider or a for-profit provider
does not readily influence the majority of parent‟s choice of provider
 All parents expressed displeasure with having to pay for a child care space when the child is
sick, and/or on vacation in order to maintain the space
 All parents like the programs and services offered through Ontario Early Years Centres and
satellites
 The most important factor influencing participation at the OEYC is quality programming
 Who operates the OEYC (municipality or community agency) is not a determining factor for
participation to parents
3.2.2 Special Needs
Agency Provided Services and Centre-based Resource Teachers
Special needs resources are specialized services provided to children with special needs so
that they can attend licensed child care programs that are not segregated from other children.
In the City of Windsor and County of Essex these are provided through two distinct methods of
delivery, agency based resource teachers and 9 resource teachers that are the employees of
individual child care centres and/or providers. The agency based resource teachers are
employees of the Children First agency and comprise a component of their family centred, early
intervention programs for children in Windsor and Essex County.
A focus group was held for the centre-based resource teachers. In addition a meeting was held
with the Executive Director and staff from Children First. Appendix 4 contains a full record of the
ensuing discussions. The following themes were identified through the two meetings:
 Wait lists for services are a major challenge

 Children now have more challenging special needs
 Not all licensed child care programs are willing to accommodate children with special needs
 Frequently, licensed child care providers need additional ECE staff to support children with
routines
 Licensed child centre program staff need professional development to more appropriately
support children with special needs
 It was believed that the special needs resource teachers/agency should supply this training
 Centre based special needs resource teachers often perform tasks that could be performed
by an ECE
 There is a lack of speech pathology services that compromises the effectiveness of special
needs resources
 A flexible approach where the extent of special needs services are focused on the individual
child‟s needs rather than the centre‟s needs would be an improvement in the delivery of this
program
 Common levels of services, individual education plans, wait lists and intake are not in use
Parents of Children with Special Needs
Nineteen parents attended the focus group representing 15 families. Appendix 5 contains a full
record of the discussions. The following themes were identified in their feedback:
 Licensed child care providers “cherry pick” children with special needs

 Adaptability/flexibility, quality, safety, availability of resource teachers are important factors
in their choice of a child care provider
 Waiting lists for “resource spots” impede their ability to use licensed child care
 The cost of child care is significant
 Centre staff need better training
 JK/SK program structure is not flexible to children with special needs
 Due to scarce resources, luck often determines if you get services
 Parents will quit jobs in order to get their children the services they need
 Most have had negative experiences with the child care fee subsidy system
 Subsidy forms should be simplified, expense ceilings do not take into account the expenses
of special needs
 Appreciate OEYC but feel the centres could do more to accommodate
 Other parents at OEYC programs are not accepting of children with special needs, as a
result some do not feel welcome
 Most would prefer segregated drop-in programs for children with special needs
 All parents notice a lack of posters, pictures and displays in OEYC and licensed child care
centres that depict children and adults with disabilities
 To improve access to services the services have to be delivered sooner, without waiting lists
 Programs should be available year round
3.2.3 Child Care Operators & Agencies
All licensed child care operators were invited to attend a focus group to share insights and
opinions on the City‟s management of the municipally funded children services system.
Agencies with mandates that included delivering services to children ages 0 to 6 were invited to
a focus group to discuss issues related to municipally funded children‟s services. The full
records of these two meetings are provided in Appendix 6. The following themes were identified
through the meetings:
 The Department‟s efforts to engage and solicit input from agencies serving families and
children are improving, communication between the City and providers is good
 These efforts are compromised by a past when the City gave the appearance of seeking
input from agencies but the decisions had already been made
 The new administration has allowed for open dialogue
 The City could enhance the level of support to agencies by improving trust, reinstate
network meetings, advise agencies of upcoming changes
 The City should allow agencies to be part of identifying special needs service levels
indicators
 The City is still compromised by the community perception that there are some preferred
agencies in the know while others are left out, providers feel powerless that changes will be
made regardless of their input
 Two examples of when the City said it had consulted but really had not were given as the
Ontario Early Years selection process and the wage subsidy restructuring
 The City has excessive paperwork demands without a reciprocal of sharing the information it
collects in the form of system reports etc.
 Perception of the Children‟s Services central wait list is that the City creams children from
this first and then refers left over parents to community providers
 The City often struggles with communication relying on an “inner circle” of providers who are
informed first

 The City is in a conflict of interest as a system provider and direct operator and examples
where provided were the City has not been transparent in its decision making and/or has
provided benefits to its‟ programs at the expense of identical community delivered programs
 As a deliverer of early child education programs the City can set high standards, open doors
that would otherwise remain closed, provide leadership and advocate on behalf of the entire
system
 If the City closed municipal child care centres the system as a whole would experience a
decline in the ability to attract and retain qualified ECE staff
 In regards to children with special needs it was felt there needs to be a more co-ordinated
effort on the part of community agencies, a centralized model
 In addition to the services of a resource teacher there should be a “support worker”
3.2.4 City Children’s Services Staff
Staff of various positions were invited to a focus group to insure that the group was
representative of the positions within the Children‟s Services Division. A full record of the
discussions is provided in Appendix 7. The following themes were identified through staff input:
 The City is connecting with the community by opening OEY centres in child care centres
and schools
 Staff could profit from more networking meetings with co-horts in the community
 City child care centres could be more customer friendly, parents are not given an invoice for
fees owed, just a bill, only hand written receipts are offered,
 The delivery of Child care Fee Subsidy program is inconsistent
 It was felt that councillors could visit centres and programs to become more informed
 The high quality ECE delivered programs in City operated child care centres provides lots of
flexibility to parents and do not refuse children due to special needs
 Parents are charged according to enrolment to continue to allow for “as required schedule”,
other providers do not provide this flexibility
 Top
 Notch nutrition programs sets a high standard
 Centres allow for fee subsidy case managers to meet parents outside of the office
 Work and Learn is a valuable program
 Allowable ceilings for fee subsidy should be reviewed
 Consistent policies need to be developed for child care fee subsidies
 Wait times for child care fee subsidy needs to be shortened
 Discounts should be provided to staff who use city operated child care centres
 Discounts should be offered to families with more than one child enrolled at the centre
 Staff view themselves as being paid less than everyone else in the department performing
similar jobs despite the joint job evaluation process
3.3 CONSOLIDATED MUNICIPAL SERVICE MANAGER INTERVIEWS
A format for semi-structured interviews with Consolidated Municipal Service Managers (CMSM)
was developed and interviews of approximately 2 hours in duration were conducted with
representatives from 3 other CMSM‟s. The CMSM‟s to be interviewed were selected by the
Steering Committee and provided the interview questions in advance of the interview. CMSM‟s
were asked to provide responses to questions with the condition that all responses would be
reported anonymously. Interviews with the Regional Municipality of Peel and Halton were
conducted on site. The remaining interview with Chatham Kent was conducted through

teleconference. Other Municipalities were contacted and due to limitations were unable to
provide complete information.
The questionnaires were developed in order to aid in identifying the approaches of each CMSM
to delivery issues and experiences by the Children‟s Services Division. The goal was to identify
delivery approaches to various program areas, best practises and experience and insights into
problem resolution. Figure 3 provides the information collected in a comparative format.
Information from some of the open-ended questions that could not be presented in chart form is
provided below:
3.3.1 Activities that Support Agencies
 Leadership through participation and multiple opportunities for input

 Regular meetings with child care providers
 Direct community agency involvement in departmental and system planning and delivery of
services
 One CMSM has 2 consultants available to provide program advice to agencies upon request
 Cross sectoral participation in planning (i.e. close relationship with public health)
3.3.2 Major Constraints of the Current Delivery Structure
 Consensual agreement on limited funding and lack of flexibility in the child care fee and
wage subsidy programs restrict ability to meet community needs
 Funding base for special needs and resource centres has not changed for 10 years
 Costs for municipally operated centres is high due to paying fair wages
3.3.3 Municipal Centres Recovering Operating Costs from Fees
 Only one of the two municipalities interviewed recovers entire operating costs from fees in
its‟ municipally operated, non-unionized centres
 This municipality also uses program assistant positions in its staffing ratios
 One municipality provides a 100% municipal subsidy equal to the difference between
operating costs and fee revenues, while the other funds this difference using surpluses from
other cost shared programs (child care fee subsidy etc.)
 The municipalities interviewed indicated that all municipally operated centres have a 100%
occupancy standard that supervisors are held accountable to
 Special Needs programs have centralized intake with elements of system case
management
 “On-site resource teacher” is a level of service provided centrally through service providers
 Formal service standards, levels of service are used
 Permanent programs exist to increase classroom staff ratios where required to ensure
classes move through routines and are safe productive learning environments, managed by
the special needs resource providers
 In the past 5 years special needs resource programs have moved to centrally managed,
services provided by itinerant resource teachers providing training, consultation and
program assistants supported by the ability to increase classroom staff ratios when justified
through applied criteria

Figure 3: Consolidated Municipal Service Manager Information Comparison
TOPIC WINDSOR CMSM # 2 CMSM # 3 CMSM # 4 CMSM # 5

# of Municipally
Operated Centres 9 3 11 2
Municipal centres
recover 100% of costs No Yes No No
from Fees
Role municipally Community should Municipality has The municipally
should have take the role of responsibility to operated child care
in direct delivery offering quality care. provide leadership and centres should set a
Support the does through direct standard that other
development of quality delivery of high quality operators should strive
indicators in support of programs to obtain.
improving care and
that municipal centres
have a role in this
context.
Are you planning Yes – Based on Consolidation of Best Best Start Planning Best Start Planning
changes in the next outcomes of Strategic Start guidelines with a
year? Review local community
Best Start Planning initiative
# of licensed centres 112 211 Centres 379 Centres 17
Total licensed capacity 6,473 11,125 19,501 1,539
Ave. Fee Subsidy 250:1 220-250:1 300:1 190:1
Caseload Ratio
Formal Local Fee yes yes yes no
Subsidy Policies
Municipally operated yes no no no
OEYC Centres
Community operated Yes - satellites Yes - all Yes - all Yes - all
OEY Centres
# of Operators 3 operated by the City none 11 Municipal centres 1 provides care 5 pm
Providing Non CAW 1 for-profit provider to 10pm
Traditional Care St. Clair College
Operate OW Job Yes – Work and Learn no yes no
Training Program

TOPIC WINDSOR CMSM # 2 CMSM # 3 CMSM # 4 CMSM # 5
# Special Needs 11 in total - 1 – common intake Municipal Centres 1 – amalgamated
Resource Providers 2 agencies, have one on-site agency
9 individual resource resource teacher
teachers each.
Community agencies
also provide services -
staff consultation and
direct work with
children (system has
central intake)
Special Needs Levels no yes Yes -classroom yes
of Service? assistance provided
through criteria
administered by
special needs
resource agency

4. DATA ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The analysis of the collected information and data is organized according to overall
management of the Children‟s Services Division and each individual management portfolio.
4.1 CHILDREN SERVICES DIVISION MANAGEMENT
The collection of information about the overall management of the Division and the position of
the Division within the greater Children‟s‟ Services System in Windsor and the County of Essex
led to the identification of four general themes.
A lack of consistent strategic leadership within the Division

The City of Windsor is perceived to be in a conflict of interest as the system manager and a
direct operator of services
The culture of the Department has previously been autocratic and controlling, which created
significant animosity between the City and numerous community providers
The program skill and expertise within the Division is significant resulting in the development
and maintenance of some extremely high quality and innovative programs
4.1.1 Community Leadership
Information collected through the key informant interviews, agency focus groups and site visits
characterizes the Divisions‟ past activities within the community as lacking in collaborative
practices. Agencies reflected that they felt excluded from the planning process. Agencies
described an environment where the City gave the appearance of seeking input but in fact had
already made decisions. On a positive note, the overwhelming majority of key informants
reflected that they have recently seen a recognizable and positive shift in the Department‟s
efforts to collaborate and communicate with community agencies with new relationships
emerging. Agencies and service providers confirm that the new administration encourages open
dialogue and is making demonstrable effort to repair and develop relationships that are
grounded in trust.
Overall, the data reflects a Department and a Division that is in transition. New leadership has
established positive momentum and change within the department and this change is being
recognized throughout the community. The word transition implies an environment where
change has been initiated but the new direction is not assured. The challenges will be for the
emerging leadership structure to continue to effectively support the Division to maintain its‟
forward motion.
Many service providers perceive the City to be in a conflict of interest as the system manager,
controlling and issuing program funding while also directly delivering services. The hard feelings
associated with the negative past leave the City vulnerable to claims that it favours itself with
delivery funds first and provides remaining funds to the community. This is reinforced by the
realities of wage increases determined by the City administration that are applied to City staff
wages and not replicated in funds directed to operators or OEYC providers.
While the City has a conflict of interest as a direct deliverer and a system manager, what
compounds the issue is that it has done very little to manage this conflict. A historic lack of
transparency in decision-making has intensified the conflict. The present organizational

structure, which mixes program and policy/system management responsibilities across job
functions, also intensifies the conflict. While many aspects of the conflict are unintentional and
beyond the control of the Division and the Department, the present management structure does
not clearly delineate position responsibility for creating plans to manage cost increase issues as
they arise. Therefore, the Division remains constrained in its abilities to manage the perception
of favouring its own within the children‟s services community.
On a positive note, the community has recognized the clear break with the past by the present
administration. There is widespread opinion that there would be significant negative effects if the
City withdrew as a direct deliverer of services. At this time, a strategic statement of intent from
the Department as to how it will insure transparent management of the system while remaining
a direct deliverer of service would serve to solidify the direction of change.
4.1.2 Division Leadership
Structural changes to the Department between 2001 and 2003 created a leadership vacuum
that affected the management activities of the Children‟s Services Division. The Ontario Work‟s
and Children‟s Services program portfolios are significant in scope and had previously been
assigned to the same Executive Director. Changes recommended in a review of the Ontario
Works Division to create a combined Housing and Children‟s Services Executive Director
portfolio are designed to allow for an increase in the profile of the Children‟s Services Division
within the Department‟s executive leadership. This transfer of responsibilities to the former
Executive Director of Housing creates an opportunity to continue to lead the Division through
the transition with an objective leader, unencumbered with an investment in past decisions.
Although the community described a difficult and often confrontational past, which created
tension and animosity, others were quick to point out that senior management were also
strongly goal oriented. Respondents indicated that staff worked endlessly towards achieving
concrete well-articulated goals to improve the children‟s services system overall. Restructuring
combined with other stresses within the Department has led to a void in the development of
Divisional goals and objectives over time. Input reflected there is a strong need to develop
consensus on Divisional goals and objectives and that Divisional staff be united in working
cooperatively towards achieving established targets.
Community input and program information has consistently indicated that there is a high degree
of program skill, knowledge and delivery expertise held by the management team. Most
acknowledge that this has resulted in considerable contributions to the community that would
not have otherwise existed. The majority of child care operators and agencies applaud the City
for the high quality of child care and OEYC programming available in municipally operated sites.
This team has also created programs such as Work and Learn, a program that is provincially
recognized for its innovative design and for its overwhelming success in assisting low-income
individuals to gain work skills and financial independence. Further, this team deserves credit for
beginning the shift to a more collaborative, trustworthy approach to working with the community.
Internally they have helped to promote a more inclusive and empowering environment where
decisions are now delegated to more appropriate decision making levels.
When Children‟s Services devolved to CMSM administration the Ministry of Community and
Social Services ended the “Approved Corporations” and direct operating grants. The
community advises that the City administration indicated to other licensed child care providers
affected by this change that they would be required to operate according to their child care fee
revenues. The effects of this announcement theoretically would have required the City operated

child care centres to operate as standalone financial entities as well. As such, business plans
for each Centre that control costs and maximize revenues would be in place. Each management
portfolio would balance program needs and requirements with costs, revenues and/or
sustainable funding. None of this has occurred because financial management has not been an
integral expectation of managers and supervisors in municipal or OEYC centres. Evidence
indicates that when approved corporations existed and direct operating were received, budget
development was managed centrally. While this had worked in the past, it will not work in an
environment of revenue-based programs. During the past five years this has intensified the
visibility of a conflict of interest and created animosity with community agencies that have gone
through a difficult transition to a revenue based agency, while the City‟s operations have not
changed. In summary, despite a high level of program delivery skill, the information collected
reflects that there is an absence of business and financial acumen that pre-dates the present
management team and Department leadership.
Some staff (interviews and focus groups) indicated that there is some tension amongst program
managers produced by a lack of clarity between manager‟s roles and responsibilities. This is
both evidenced in the lack of clear distinction between system management, planning, policy
and program delivery. It was reported that there often appears to be conflicting goals between
managers regarding how to balance quality service delivery with fiscal accountability. The
expectation to balance program goals and fiscal accountability should be an integral part of
each manager‟s portfolio.
The data suggests that all three Manager positions have been given a mix of conflicting
management responsibilities. The Manager of Family Strengthening and NCB has system
management responsibilities (OEY and NCB) and program delivery responsibilities. The Ontario
Early Years Centre staff work in Licensed Child Care Centres or work in satellite programs
attached to the Licensed Child Care Centres. The Manager of Municipal Child Centres is not
expected to operate in a manner similar to a non-profit child care operator with viable business
cases to underpin the programs operated in each municipal child care centre. The Children
Services System Manager does not set program reporting and accountability requirements for
the internally delivered programs, although it does for external programs.
Tension and conflict amongst manager positions is only intensified by the present out of date
job descriptions that fail to address key aspects related to fiscal accountability. This seems to
reflect the lingering effects of the downloading of children‟s services. The annual Division
budget prior to the download was $4 million, which increased to $20 million as the management
for community programs was accepted. Given the lack of role clarity in manager positions, and
the unacknowledged conflict of interest created by the downloading, it is understandable that
conflict would emerge. Further, the leadership vacuum resulted in a lack of foresight to
understand that the Division management practises needed to change and new resources were
required to respond to a new management environment.
It has already been established that the Division has significant program delivery expertise.
However enhancing the Division‟s capacity for policy and planning would further support the
Division‟s ability to respond to newly introduced policy initiatives and develop strategic plans for
their effective and timely implementation. Developing common Divisional goals and updating job
descriptions to more accurately reflect job functions as they related to financial management will
greatly reduce these conflicts, likely lead to reduced municipal costs and thus improve
community perception of spending patterns.

Recommendation 1: That the Division establish annual goals and objectives that
guide work plan development.
Recommendation 2: That the Manager portfolios be realigned to clearly separate

system management responsibilities from program delivery responsibilities.
Recommendation 3: That all Divisional job descriptions be updated and that

management positions by clearly accountable for the financial management of their
portfolio of program responsibilities.
Recommendation 4: That all Divisional management staff receive financial

management training.
Recommendation 5: That the Division enhance its policy and planning capacity to
support program delivery and system management.
4.2 DIRECTLY OPERATED CHILD CARE CENTRES & SERVICES
Focus group discussions and key informant interviews included the questions:
 “ What role, if any, do you believe the municipality should have in the direct delivery of
licensed child care and why?”
 “If the municipality were to discontinue the direct delivery of children‟s services such as
licensed child care, what impacts (positive and negative) would it have on the community?”
Overall the information collected indicates that the community believes there were would be a
significant negative impact on the children services system if the City withdrew from the direct
operation of licensed child care centres. Respondents indicated that in their view a strong role
model for quality child care in the community would disappear, parents would experience
increasing uncertainty as to the quality of services and programs and less choice, and there
would be a decline in quality of service and care in the system overall. Further, the community
believes that the City has the power to open doors to support system improvements due to its
political connections that other centres could not open. Discussions acknowledged that the City
centres have the resources that compel them to accept all children who apply (space
warranted), which means they often accept children with special needs that have been refused
by other centres.
The quality and programs offered by the City Centres set a high standard. Parents recognized
this by reflecting they believe the City centres often offer better programs, materials and
professional staff. These centres are the preferred training centres and mentoring sites for the
St. Clair College early childhood education program and other students. The City centres have
access to leading edge research and best practices in the profession given the City‟s role as
system manager. Further, the City centres offer flexible care hours not available from the
majority of other providers.

However, despite the accolades, the community very clearly views the City in a conflict of
interest as the system manager and a direct operator. The City placed itself in a difficult position
when it indicated that it would change its operation when the approved corporations and direct
operating grant funding models ended and then did not change. While not reflective of the
majority, there are some providers who feel strongly that the City should withdraw from direct
delivery and that the present system would be able to replace the spaces presently delivered by
the City centres. Most providers indicated that if the City withdraws as a direct operator then
there would be more money available for all of the other operators to enhance the number of
spaces in the community. At present this is a true reflection of the reality. However, overall
stakeholders including key informants, agencies, some child care providers, parents and other
CMSM‟s reflected that the positive impact of the City remaining as a direct deliverer far exceeds
the minorities call for a withdrawal of their services. The negative impacts of withdrawal were
simply described as too great.
The shift to a funding base dependent on parent fees has severely stressed the ability of
municipalities and community colleges throughout Ontario to continue to operate child care
centres that recover operating costs from fees. The primary reason for this is municipalities and
community colleges pay fair wages to early childhood educators working in the system, when
comparatively, other providers do not. The majority of municipally operated centres do not
recover their operating costs from the fees charged to parents including the City of Windsor
child centres. Until, 2004 the City was able to maintain its historic share of the child care fee
subsidy budget. While hindsight has confirmed that the City‟s earlier promise that it would
recover its costs from fees when the approved corporations and direct operating grants were
dissolved was both premature and unrealistic, the inability to follow through on this statement
have created tension and animosity.
Figure 2 presents information that describes the financial position of the municipally operated
child care centres. It clearly shows that the centres do not meet their operational costs through
fees. Further, some centres have consistently low occupancy rates and have higher than
average costs when compared to the average for all of the centres. The growth of the operating
deficit in 2004 has been slowed through program cuts in individual centres and an increase in
fees. However, the deficit in all likelihood will continue to increase in 2005 due to continuing
vacancies, the 3% increase in unionized staff wages and the ending of the OMERS pension
contribution holiday. To date there is no management plan to address these issues.
Clearly the information collected indicates that the City operates high quality licensed child care
centres. Internally, the program skills and early childhood professionalism amongst the staff are
impressive. These have combined to create programs like Work and Learn acknowledged
provincially as a leading best practise. The delivery of this program is possible because of the
additional administration, mentoring and coaching provided by municipal staff, the employment
expertise applied to programming and close links with Ontario Works caseworkers. The inter-
divisional skills of employment planning and preparation, training and child care delivery
combine to create this unique program. While many child care operators believe they could
deliver the Work and Learn Program equally well, it is unlikely that they could develop the
employment and Ontario Works expertise required to support its successful delivery. Nor would
there be a vested interest in continued success through Ontario Works social assistance
payment reductions as evidenced through the inter-divisional relationship. It is more likely that
agencies view Work and Learn participants as additional supports potentially available to assist
in fulfilling staff ratios as opposed to the reality that they are full-time trainees with concurrent
employment and familial issues that need to be co-managed, for which the time demands are
considerable.

The lack of business goals and financial management expectations revealed at the
management level are also evident in the management of the licensed centres. Business plans
for each centre are not an expectation of the Centre Supervisor; this would be a normative
expectation for a non-profit or commercial provider. Clear strategic goals that the Centre
Supervisors are held accountable to; such as occupancy goals have not been established.
Establishing centre business plans that adhere to occupancy policies are an accepted business
practice of many municipalities that directly operate child care centres. Further, licensed and
operating capacities and historic levels of occupancy have not been reviewed in relation to rates
charged and costs of operation to determine whether each site remains financially viable.
As previously reported, parents readily notice the high quality of the programs operated by
municipal centres. They have also noticed the lack of a business approach to fees. Municipally
operated centres do not provide itemized invoices for fees. Parents are advised of an amount to
pay by the supervisor. It has also been reported that the municipality is behind in the collection
of arrears. It may be that these two issues are connected. Focus group respondents reported
that due to the lack of a formal billing process, supervisors spend considerable time explaining
amounts owed.
While setting out these findings, it remains clear that the community wants the City to continue
to directly operate child care centres. There are no examples in Canada that suggest a positive
improvement is made to the local child care system when a municipality has closed municipal
child care centres. As the system manager the City would create a further conflict of interest of
working to the disadvantage of the system by withdrawing from direct operation. The evidence
collected indicates this would be a poor management decision On the other hand; there is no
body of evidence to suggest that prudent financial management will reduce program quality.
A clear distinction between municipally operated centres and others relates to the payment of
fair wages. It must be acknowledged that the Children‟s Services Division does not control the
levels of pay of the child care centre staff. These are set centrally through collective bargaining
where the Division has no control over the process. Salaries are increased with no recognition
of the impact on Division operations. Further, the entire community acknowledges that the City
Centres pay their staff fair wages equivalent to the importance and demands of early childhood
education.
A further distinction exists when a municipal centre considers refusing an available space to a
child. This is not permissible when a child care centre also represents the elected council.
Municipal centres were reported to accommodate more parents with shifting and/or irregular
work schedules, more parents requiring after-hour or weekend care and more children with
special needs. For all of these reasons, it is clear that municipally operated child care centres
cannot operate like independent non-profit operators, as the mandate required by Council fulfils
a much more comprehensive role in the delivery of services.
In summary, it is an unrealistic expectation of licensed child care operators that the City be
expected to operate municipal centres like non-profit providers. These are not non-profit
centres, these are municipally operated Centres. For a whole host of reasons, clearly outlined
through the data collected, City child care staff perform roles and functions that many other not-
for profit and for profit operators do not that are designed to fill gaps, maintain and enhance the
delivery of the system overall. These include advocacy at the provincial and municipal levels,
research into best practice, information sharing, training and development opportunities,
networking, mentoring and coaching, etc.

Recommendation 6: That the City continue to directly operate municipal child care
centres, provided each operation is determined to be viable according to newly
established occupancy rates.
Recommendation 7: That the Division establish an occupancy rate policy and further
that a transition period be defined to enable centres to reach established rates.
Recommendation 8: That the Division conduct a comprehensive business review

and financial audit of each municipally operated child care centre including an
examination of but not limited to the following:
the ability of the operational capacity to support the centre operations based on
the present fee structure
the use of local fee structures where this makes sense
the use of temporary and permanent staff
the tendering of general and capital maintenance
the feasibility of the location in light of revenue, costs and the Best Start
guidelines
business practices related to fees, billings and collection
Recommendation 9: That the business reviews culminate in the development of

business plans for each centre, that Centre Supervisors execute and update on an
annual basis to eliminate the $469,053 deficit between now and 2008.
Recommendation 10: That the Division establish a goal of holding the municipal
child care centre operations to the benchmarks established in the 2005 municipal
budget, while it concurrently conducts a more complete financial audit of individual
municipal child care centre operations.
Recommendation 11: That management staff be required to develop a plan that

details how salary and wage increases as required by the new Collective Agreement
will be managed over the term of the Agreement.
Recommendation 12: That the operational costs of the Work and Learn Program be
quantified and paid to each participating Centre through National Child Benefit
Savings. Further, that the savings in Ontario Works financial expenditures produced
by Work and Learn should be quantified and reported semi-annually.
Recommendation 13: That a management function be designated to manage child

care centre program costs on a macro level.

4.3 CHILDREN SERVICE SYSTEM MANAGEMENT
Information collected in the focus groups and interviews has focused on the conflict of interest
that results from the City direct operation of services and its‟ responsibilities as the service
system manager. Further, it has been acknowledged that the present management structure
has created some overlap of function between direct operations and service system
management. The complete recommendations in this report will have an impact on the service
system management by insuring that this management portfolio will have complete
responsibility for service system management. Recommendations contained in this and
remaining sections of the report will continue to build on the necessity to manage the conflict
between service system management and direct delivery.
Children‟s services agencies stated that they are treated differently from the City operated
services. Agencies presented the reality that they have to submit rates almost one year in
advance in order to qualify as a Purchase of Service operator for child care fee subsidies.
Alternatively it was reported that the City centres raised rates after the deadline that was given
to all other operators. Specific sub-sections that follow will address service system management
issues on a program basis. However, in order to manage the conflict of interest, this
management portfolio will need the ability and structures in place to show that it places reporting
and program expectations on the City delivered services that are similar to those placed on the
community delivered services. It is this transparency that will facilitate and develop collaborative
and equitable relationships with community children‟s services providers while insuring that the
City of Windsor is both cognizant of its‟ conflict of interest and willing to manage this in the best
interests of the community.
It was reported earlier in this report that there are 3 methods of delivering special needs
resourcing services across the City and County. Children‟s Rehabilitation Centre provides some
services to children attending their on-site, pre-school program. Some centres receive services
provided by, „travelling resource teachers through Children‟s First and 9 individual centres have
on-site resource teachers on staff. The program approach has evolved locally and is neither
necessarily reflective nor consistent with the delivery approaches in other jurisdictions in
Ontario.
In site visits, focus groups and parent meetings the information collected indicates that all three
are valued programs. Parents‟ in particular report that staff in all three programs are committed
professionals with a high degree of skills working in difficult environments. Visits and meetings
with representatives from all three forms of delivery confirm the parent‟s impressions. As well,
all three groups recognized that the status quo is in transition and were diligent in providing
information about their service delivery to inform the review.
Nine different child care centres receive funds for 10.5 resource teacher positions, which are
locally referred to as the “on-site resource teacher” model. While the services provided by
Children First are referred to as the “travelling resource teacher model”. The reference to both
as distinct models is inaccurate. For example, the child care centre based resource teachers
deliver special needs services in many different ways, dependent on their employer‟s needs and
the demands of the children attending the centre at any given time. In many circumstances the
on-site resource teacher positions are performing duties or functions that could also be provided
by an ECE or a program assistant. In many other CMSM jurisdictions in Ontario the term on-site
resource teacher refers to a level of service provided by what locally is referred to as a travelling

resource teacher. So understanding the language used by various individuals within the City‟s
delivery boundaries and across jurisdictions is critical.
The travelling resource teacher services delivered by Children‟s First have come under
considerable criticism as not effective, particularly when compared to the on-site resource
teacher model. However, a more complete examination of the respective models suggests that
this criticism is both unfair and unfounded. Primarily, the model is under-funded to the point
where it cannot be considered to be a true “itinerant resource teacher model”. The inability of
Children‟s First to co-ordinate and provide the use of support staff to enhance ECE classroom
ratios is a structural deficiency. Research about other Ontario and Canadian jurisdictions
indicates that this is a crucial structural component of this model of delivery.
The Children‟s Rehabilitation Centre pre-school program provides an inclusive, integrated

workplace child care program. The program‟s ability to be inclusive, which means that it is both
accessible and provides special needs specialists, is due to the integration of a host of
additional resources available in the Centre. The shortfalls of this approach are that the funds
are applied to limited spaces, children have to have been referred to the centre (there is a
waiting list) and parents have to transport their children to the program. Some parents reported
quitting their employment so that they could have their child participate in this program.
The present special needs resources program structure does not support the ability of the
programs to operate in a co-ordinated, integrated fashion and to be fair, this has not been a
service expectation from the City. There are no common levels of service to describe what is
actually provided at what cost, there is no central intake mechanism and there is not a standard
format Individual Education Program Plan in use. There are no integrated service management
meetings where the three programs meet to discuss issues ranging from common clients to
systemic program issues such as the lack of speech pathology services. The three programs
operate in individual silos.
Typically, the City has described itself as having two delivery approaches; the on-site and the
travelling resource model. The Children‟s Rehabilitation Program has been referred to as a
„segregated program” and was not readily identified as a special needs delivery agent. These
are unfortunate perceptions built upon a delivery system that has many of the elements of the
historic program segregation of these services. Rather than choosing one model over the other
it would be more effective if service system management focus on inclusion in regards to
children with special needs. In fact, the Ministry of Children and Youth Services and City of
Windsor are required by the Ontarians with Disabilities Act to insure that licensed child care
services, Ontario Early Years Centres and all early childhood education programs are inclusive
in their approach to the delivery of services. Further the Children‟s Services Division in various
planning documents has stated that, “ services and supports “should be flexible, inclusive and
responsive to the needs, choices and preferences of families”.
Recommendations will then focus on the two elements of inclusion, accessibility and the
specialist services necessary for program participation. Further for the purposes of this report,
the use of the terms, itinerant resource teacher and licensed child care centre-based resource
services will be used to provide descriptive clarity and not confuse a delivery model with levels
of service.

Accessibility
Accessibility can be described as the physical structure‟s suitability to having children with
special needs participating in the programs and the organization‟s attitudes towards accepting
and working with children with special needs. Research and experiences presented in local
focus groups and interviews identified that the program directors‟ and early childhood educators‟
attitudes, knowledge and training are key in creating an accessible environment. Further, there
must be access to a range of resources and supports including time for planning and
consultation. However, first the child with special needs must be accepted into the program and
it is this element that makes the attitudes and professional confidence of the program director
and early childhood educators crucial to inclusion.
Parents reported that they know that licensed child care centres “cherry pick”. In other words,
there are licensed child care centres that will not accept children with special needs or will
discriminate according to the presented needs. Licensed Child Care operators reported that
parents are not up-front if the child has special needs or behavioural issues and that due to
funding restrictions they often lack the resources to accept children. The negative elements of
poor accessibility are that parents with children with special needs do not have a free choice of
child care options and therefore parents have learned to hide the needs of their child in order to
get care.
It was also reported that the Ontario Early Years Centres are not accessible environments for
children with special needs. Parents of children with special needs identified that it is the other
parents who are not accepting of their children and that some staff are not confident working
with their children at drop-ins. The necessity for resources and supports for children with special
needs in the Ontario Early Years Centre programs were also noted as a service gap by agency
staff.
In examining the respective delivery models ability to improve accessibility the limitations of the
child care centre based resource teacher has to be acknowledged. The model creates an
unnecessary reliance on the individual resource teacher. The centre based resource teacher
often becomes the “fixer” for staff, called in to resolve issues rather than to provide the specialist
range of supports and services they are trained to provide. In effect, the professional skill and
abilities of the trained early childhood educator are minimized by this approach suggesting that
they cannot work with children with special needs.
Often a trained early childhood educator program assistant that increases the staff ratio
provides an effective inclusive focused support that addresses the needs of the entire
classroom. It is this service component that supports the effective use of the itinerant resource
teacher model in other jurisdictions. Unfortunately, with the consolidation of services that
created Children First a budget for these services was overlooked. Further, program funds
spread amongst 10 providers applying different models and differing levels of service, has
meant that program assistant funds were managed by the Children Services Division not the
special needs program operators. Further funds for program assistants to be used in this
support capacity were temporarily coming from program surpluses in other areas.
The reliance upon the centre based resource teacher does not compel the centre director or
other staff to adopt attitudes and develop skills that create the inclusive classroom. It further
clusters children with special needs into these centres, thereby limiting parental choice, allows
other centres to refuse children with special needs and limits the workplace based experiences

of ECE‟s to children with a narrow range of developmental needs. Information collected locally
from providers and parents confirms the local manifestations of these effects.
In discussions around this topic throughout the review some operators remarked, “If they take
away our resource teacher we will have to refuse children.” Feedback from ECE staff was that
many are unfamiliar with differing needs and do not possess the skills necessary to work with
children, which have a broader range of developmental needs. This is due to a combination of a
lack of initial training through ECE diploma/degree courses and a lack of workplace based
experiences. The lack of training and workplace-based experiences amongst local early
childhood educators is recognized by Children‟s First and the Children‟s Rehabilitation Centre.
Both agencies have offered to provide workplace based and classroom training to local early
childhood educators.
Systemic gaps within the local service spectrum further hinder accessibility of early education
programs. In the relationship between the local junior/senior kindergarten and licensed child
care programs funding silos are readily apparent that work counter to an inclusive early learning
environment. Information collected from focus groups and reports indicates that while supports
exist to include children with special needs in licensed child care programs, school boards are
not obligated by legislation to provide accommodation services for the same children with
special needs in junior and senior kindergarten programs. From the parents viewpoint this
creates a contradictory service environment that limits choices and denies service.
Recommendation 14: That the Division support the development and delivery of a
training strategy to increase inclusivity and operators skills in working with children
with special needs.
Recommendation 15: That the Division co-ordinate a staff exchange program

between Children’s First, the Children’s Rehabilitation Program and licensed child
care providers to provide workplace based experiences related to working with
children with special needs.
Specialist Supports and Services
The historic origins of the special resources budgets are contained in the former segregated
programs that were closed approximately twenty years ago. At the time of closing the programs,
the services remained segregated in a programmatic context through separate budgets and a
context that reflected upon these services as “extra”. The budget remains segregated today as
its‟ mandate is specific to licensed child care programs, not early childhood education programs,
and with the exception of recent early learning and child care funds, has not been enhanced in
the past ten years. Therefore the budget bears little relation to the comprehensive range of
community services required to support children with special needs in early childhood education
programs and the needs within the broader community. It would appear that funding for
inclusive early intervention has not kept pace with funding for early identification.
It was reported by agencies, ECE staff and parents that both the City and County suffer from a
lack of speech pathology services. Children‟s First reports that it has continual waiting lists for
crucial support services to children such as occupational therapists that supports the child‟s
ability to participate in early childhood education programs. These funding gaps and wait lists

significantly compromise any model of special needs resource delivery the City of Windsor will
adopt and the ability of the local system to provide inclusive early childhood education programs
through Best Start.
Special Needs Resources are supposed to be available for children with developmental delays
according to provincial guidelines under the Day Nurseries Act (D.N.A.). However, the D.N.A.
has now been superseded by the definition of disability contained in the Ontarians‟ with
Disabilities Act and the inclusion requirements in this legislation. Theoretically, if a child has a
diagnosed disability that has an attendant behavioural disorder and no developmental delay,
they would not qualify for special needs services. Licensed child care centres continue to report
they come into contact with children with behavioural problems which are not attached to
developmental delays or a disability (or may be undiagnosed) that have been bounced around
from provider to provider. The behavioural issues may be situational or due to undiagnosed
maladies, but the key concern is that the child‟s unmet needs present difficulties to the entire
classrooms‟ ability to move through the early learning program routines.
The most effective inclusion support that can be provided to a licensed child care centre in
addition to the training referred to in previous recommendations are funds to allow programs to
increase their early childhood educator staffing ratio. This was the clear message received in
focus groups with agencies, parents and interviews. Research confirms the effectiveness of this
approach. This was the clear benefit of the child care centre based teacher model presented in
focus groups and individual discussions. Focus group participants also expressed frustration
that the previous Program Support Fund program (based on program surpluses) that enabled
them to partially address this issue has ended due to insufficient funding. Further, the program
operators described this as an extremely valuable resource compromised by a cumbersome
application process and insufficient funding.
Of concern is that the range of supports and services available have evolved without a central
intake-assessment component. A lack of common levels of service means that inequities exist
in service provision regardless of the model. Parents reflected that it is often just luck that they
are able to find the right level of service to enable them to feel secure that their child‟s needs are
being met. The inequities are compounded by the multiple delivery methods (10) employed
through multiple delivery agents (10). Since common levels of service do not exist, the
development of standardized service agreements and individual education/service plans is not
possible.
Research and developments in other jurisdictions would support the consolidation of present
special needs resource services into one delivery agent. It is reasonable to maintain Children's
First as the primary delivery agent to deliver special needs services to licensed child care
centres and early childhood education programs. Based on community feedback it is also
advisable to maintain funding to the Children‟s Rehabilitation Program pre-school program.
It is recommended that the program to be delivered by Children First should be an itinerant

resource teacher model that includes the following components:
Common intake and assessment

On site consultation services available to centres that have identified children with
undiagnosed behavioural, developmental and/or emotional needs
Standardized levels of service
Common service agreements with providers and families
Assistance with and time for program planning, adapting curriculum and consultation

Standardized individual education/program plan formats
Resource teachers whose time on site is determined by the needs of the child and the
number of children with special needs within the Centre
Enhanced early educator ratios based on the classroom‟s needs and the number of children
with special needs in the Centre and their levels of service.
This consolidation would end the licensed child care centre based resource services. Research
and experiences of other jurisdictions in Ontario that have completed a similar transition indicate
that a successful transition is only possible if preceded and supported by the training contained
in recommendations 14 and 15.
If adopted this consolidation will introduce considerable change into those child care centres
that presently have resource teachers as part of their staffing compliments. The
recommendations related to an “inclusion task force”, staff training and staff ratio enhancement
funding are designed to insure that the required supports are in place to insure an ordered
transition that continues to meet the needs of families, children and program operators. As a
message of good faith to the provider community, the City of Windsor could require that its‟
centres with resource teachers are the first to undertake the transition to the new service
delivery model.
Recommendation 16: That funding for the delivery of special needs resourcing
services be consolidated and that Children First continue as the delivery agent of an
itinerant resource teacher delivery model. Further, that the Children’s Rehabilitation
Centre continue to receive funding to deliver the pre-school program.
Recommendation 17: That special needs resource services and associated training
should be made available to improve the levels of inclusion in Ontario Early Years
Centres, Family Resources Centres and other early childhood education programs
that are not operated by a school board.
Recommendation 18: That Early Learning and Child Care/Best Start funds be used to
establish a fund to support a Staff Ratio Enhancement Program to assist licensed
child care operators to more effectively meet the needs of children with special
needs. Further that this fund be managed by Children First.
Recommendation 19: That the Division create and Chair an “Inclusion Task Force,”
with representation from appropriate stakeholders to guide the implementation of
the special needs recommendations contained in this report.

4.3.2 Child Care Fee Subsidy Program
This program has historically been under spent and program dollars have been distributed to
community providers in response to requests for health and safety funding enhancements.
Historically, the City of Windsor has used this surplus to fund the operating deficit of the City
operated child care centres and to provide health and safety funds. In the past year however,
the operating deficit of the municipally operated child care centres was sufficiently large so as to
prevents funds from being available for health and safety purposes. Recommendations made
earlier in the report regarding the municipally operated centres have been made with the
recognition that every dollar reduced in the operating deficit is a dollar that is returned to the
community through this program. Further, information collected from other municipalities
indicates that either their centres operate to recover costs or the municipal council subsidizes
the deficit with 100% municipal dollars in order that child care fee subsidy funds remain
available to the community.
Child care fee subsidies are delivered to low-income families in order to promote employment
and participation in school and training. Parents and agencies report a cumbersome application
process that often doesn‟t make it worth it to apply. Both focus groups confirmed that eligibility
and level of customer service is perceived as being highly dependent on the skills and
objectivity of the caseworker assigned. Informants also reported a standard two-week wait
period before an application can be taken and that services are delivered in an inconsistent
manner.
In the three focus groups with parents, they concurred that the application process is intrusive
and demeaning. They believe that the ceilings used for allowable costs are arbitrary. For
example, one participant reflected that they were advised that to calculate utility costs they were
instructed to submit either a hydro bill or a gas bill, but not both. Parents concurred that the
decisions appear subjective, the process is not easily understood and that it takes up a lot of
their time. Many feel that the current child care fee subsidy policies create financial hardship
rather than reduce it.
In the staff focus groups it was reported that there are no local written policies for the delivery of
Child Care Fee Subsidy. However, management reported that these internal written policies
exist to guide eligibility decisions and areas of discretion. In the focus group, some staff
expressed frustration when they discovered that they are delivering aspects of the program
differently. Staff also remarked that there are long delays in receiving necessary paperwork from
Ontario Works Case Managers before they can issue child care fee subsidy funds for Ontario
Works participants who have begun school or work. Parents reported that due to these delays
they often turn to the unregulated, unlicensed home child care system or risk jeopardizing
employment or training opportunities due to lack of child care and incur financial hardship.
Although reviewing fee subsidy policies was not a focus of this review, feedback from key
stakeholders prompted a quick comparison of a few key areas of the fee subsidy application
process. As noted above, many parents felt that budget item ceilings were arbitrary, unrealistic
and unfair noting the example related to utility costs. Staff reported that they believed that the
ceilings are imposed by the provincial guidelines. Select City policies were reviewed and then
compared with information collected from two neighbouring municipalities. This information is
presented in Figure 4.
Figure 4 confirms parent‟s opinions of arbitrary ceilings that would appear to be unfair. The
comparison also indicates that there is a fair amount of discretion applied by the Manager. For

example, while the City of Windsor policy on property taxes conforms to a literal interpretation of
the MCSS Guidelines, the other municipalities have found that the discretionary authority
provided by the Guidelines allows them to consider the actual amount of property taxes paid
with no restrictions. Further, the comparator administrations also recognize all utility costs as a
legitimate expense through the use of discretion under the „other‟ category. Based on this
limited review, it would appear that the City of Windsor policies include restrictive and outdated
ceilings, and unnecessary levels of approval and documentation requirements that exceed
provincial minimal standards. These findings explain the delays reported by parents and the
excessive workload reported by staff.
Case manager practise and parent feedback indicates that there is an excessive documentation
requirement. Parents are expected to provide all documentation up front at the initial application.
When parents mention the cumbersome intrusive application process they are referring in part
to these case management practices. The Children‟s Service System Manager and Supervisor
report that they receive a lot of last resort telephone calls about delays in eligibility decisions.
The also indicated that the delays are usually attributed to the applicant‟s failure to provide the
necessary documentation. Therefore the present documentation requirements add to the
workload of parents, case managers, the supervisor and manager.
The documentation requirements are local practise. While the MCYS Fee Subsidy Guidelines
require verification and documentation, these are not prescriptive to the point where eligibility
cannot be determined without all documentation. Presently in Ontario Works, eligibility will be
determined and applicants are given up to 30 days to provide verification documentation. MCSS
verification requirements have also been reduced by MCSS to minimize previously bureaucratic,
time-consuming requirements.
At present the Manager and Supervisor perform an adjudicator function that determines
eligibility after two positions, the Children‟s Services Clerk and the Children‟s Services
Caseworker have collected information, interviewed the applicants and obtained all signed
application documents. Local policies state this is a “second signature” requirement of the
provincial Fee Subsidy Guidelines. However, the guidelines simply state that:
“The person processing the application should not be the same person who approves subsidy.
Day care centre staff must not be involved in the application process.”
If these were interpreted in a manner that dictated that the Child Care Clerk activities are
considered to be the processing function of the application and the Child Care Caseworker
approves the subsidy, then the additional level of approval by the Supervisor or Manager would
be eliminated. This would be similar to and consistent with recent changes to the Ontario Works
Division, which eliminated the adjudicator requirement for determining eligibility.

Figure 4: Child Care Fee Subsidy Select Budgetary Item Policy Comparison
Budgetary Allowable Item and Amount
Item
Windsor CMSM A CMSM B
Telephone The basic monthly rate for one Cost of one monthly rate for one Cost of average monthly rate – one
phone, as per MCSS guidelines. The standard/basic residential phone line ($35.00 standard/basic residential phone ($27
current allowance is $25.48 per /month). per Bell Canada)
month
Property Actual amount unless combined Actual amount, no restrictions Actual amount, no restrictions.
Taxes mortgage/property tax exceeds
MCSS Schedule ceilings
Drugs Receipts must verify prescribed drug The actual costs of prescribed drugs not The actual cost of prescribed drugs not
costs. The lowest cost generic drug covered by an insurance plan (Verified by covered by an insurance plan.
should be purchased by the official receipt for amounts over $100 per
applicant when a drug expense in month). May include Trillium Drug plan
allowed as a deduction membership fee
Health The Children‟s Services System Actual cost for extraordinary costs subject to Actual costs not covered by an
Services Manager Supervisor must approve the discretion of the child care manager less insurance plan - i.e. chiropractor visits,
extraordinary costs and verification ACSC payments. These are annual costs counselling sessions, special devices
that these expenses have in fact averaged over 12 months. Extraordinary costs (i.e. Hearing aids, wheelchairs, etc as
been paid out by the customer must may be speech therapy, costs not covered by approved by Supervisor)
be obtained. OHIP or insurance plan, special devices costs
(i.e. hearing aid, wheel chair, etc.) For Children
with special needs see Policy # 11: Special
Needs Resourcing.
Other (specified below)
Utilities Not allowed The actual monthly costs or equal billing The actual monthly cost or equal billing
amount for the cost of utilities associated with amount for Union Energy (water heater
the stated residence, which are not heat. rentals) are included with Heat.
These may include:
 the cost of septic tank pumping The actual monthly cost or equal billing
 sewage charge amount for hydro, and water.
 water charge - well maintenance
 hot water tank rental
 electricity for lights
 natural gas/propane for appliances
Coin Laundry Not allowed The actual costs of coin laundry up to $25 Actual costs of coin laundry up to
maximum $40/month

Insurance Life insurance to a maximum of $75  Life Insurance Car insurance to maximum of
per month per family  Property Insurance $90/mon/family
 Vehicle Insurance
Monthly home insurance premiums The annual premium costs averaged over 12 Home insurance to maximum of
months may be used $25/month
Monthly car insurance to a maximum
of $150 Life insurance to maximum of
$25/month/family
Child Care Actual monthly costs for formal The costs of child care for children under the The costs of childcare for children under
licensed or informal licensed child age of 12 not enrolled in a day nursery, for the age of 12 not enrolled in a day
care for dependent children up to the which a fee subsidy will not be used and nursery. The Ontario Works maximum
age of 12 years, other than that for receipts must be provided. The Ontario Works payments for informal care will be used,
which the customer is seeking maximum payments for informal care will be receipts provided.
subsidy. used.

Each fee subsidy caseworker manages approximately 250 cases. While this is the norm
amongst other CMSM‟s, staff reflected that this is an excessive workload. A key difference
between the City of Windsor fee subsidy staff responsibilities and that of other CMSM‟s is that
fee subsidy staff also issue child care subsidy benefits as prescribed by the Ontario Works Act
to Ontario Works participants. The risk here is that in administering an Ontario Works benefit
these cases are counted in the 250 cases assigned to each worker, policies duplicate functions
in Ontario Works and an Ontario Works benefit gets confused with a Day Nurseries Act fee
subsidy benefit.
A review of the service path for administering the Ontario Works child care benefits revealed the
following.
Figure 5: Duplicate Service Functions Required by the Children Services Division

Administration of Ontario Works Child Care Benefits
Children’s Services Function Ontario Works Function

 Denial of an Ontario Works Child Care  The City does not have the legal
Benefit if arrears are owed for former authority under the Ontario Works Act
Day Nursery Child Care Fee Subsidies to do this
 Children‟s Service Clerk completes a  Information already on file through
pre-application form Ontario Works
 Children Services Caseworker contacts  The Participation Agreement planning
the customer by telephone to process responsibilities of the OW
determine specific child care subsidy Case Manager require them to discuss
needs child care needs and arrangements
 Children Services Caseworker sends  Part of the Participation Agreement
the Ontario Works Caseworker an e- planning process responsibilities of the
mail message to notify OW OW Case Manager
Caseworker of the new activity that
requires the child care subsidy
 The Children‟s Services Caseworker  Part of the Participation Agreement
asks the Ontario Works Caseworker to planning process responsibilities of the
provide e-mail notification when the OW Case Manager
Participation Agreement content has
been updated
 Subsidy file is submitted to the  OW participant is already eligible for
Children‟s Services System Supervisor the benefit by virtue of negotiating a
or Contract Administrator for the participation agreement that creates a
Second Signature/Subsidy Provision child care need
Approval  The children services requirement
confuses an OW benefit with a DNA
Child Care Fee Subsidy
 In the case of informal child care  Part of the Participation Agreement
subsidy approvals, a 30 minute office planning process responsibilities of the
interview is scheduled between the OW Case Manager requires them to
Children Services Caseworker and the meet in-person with the OW participant
OW participant

Figure 5: continued
Children’s Services Function Ontario Works Function
 At the office interview the Children‟s  Exceeds minimum reporting standards
Services Caseworker provides set by the OW Directives, OW
instruction to the customer in regards participants provide monthly updates to
to the proper completion of the child the OW Case Manager of their
care fee subsidy cost reimbursement participation activities
forms that must be submitted by the
customer bi-weekly for payment
 Children Services Caseworker may  These are already on file and required
require by Ontario Works
School schedules  Ontario Works recipient already
Consent to Obtain, Release qualifies for the assistance no further
List of Outstanding Documentation application is required
Form (what is needed to finalize the
subsidy application)
In reviewing the service path it should also be noted that a specialized children‟s services
caseworker is used to administer these benefits. The review clearly shows that duplicate
functions exist and there is considerable confusion between that of an Ontario Works Child Care
Benefit with a Day Nursery Child Care Fee Subsidy to the extent that additional applications and
approvals are required.
The advantage of having the OW caseworker manage and deliver these funds is that they can
issue funds immediately to an active case without multiple worker involvement and duplication
of activities. The recipient does not have to attend another meeting, repeat their story again and
deal with another level of bureaucracy. The fact that the Children Services Division pays fee
subsidies directly to operators would require a change in administrative procedures. However,
the cost of the administrative changes involved would be less than the resources presently used
to duplicate Ontario Works responsibilities. Changes can free up Children‟s Services staff time
to administer the day Nurseries Acts Child Care Fee Subsidies. Potentially, customer service to
both Ontario Works participants and child care fee subsidy applicants would be improved.
A key component of the province wide Best Start initiative is that the Child Care Fee Subsidy
Needs test will be transformed into an income based eligibility test. The present difficulties with
the delivery of this program need to be considered with the view that there is an opportunity to
introduce significant change in how this program is managed and delivered in the future. It is
unlikely that provincial changes will occur before mid 2006. However, there are some interim
changes that could be made to the present business practices to simplify the application
process. These include considering returning OW child care fee subsidy administration to the
OW program and updating budget ceilings. These changes will improve customer services and
provide more effective support to promote employment and participation in school and training
for low-income residents in need of child care subsidy.
Recommendation 20: That the delivery and management of the Fee Subsidy
Program be considered a program delivery function, while the management of
Purchase of Service Agreements with Child Care Providers continue to be treated as
a system management function.

Recommendation 21: That the Division review the monthly budget items ceilings and
establish revised ceilings that are a fair reflection of the present cost of these items
in Windsor and Essex.
Recommendation 22: That the Division simplify the Child Care Fee Subsidy
application and eligibility determination process by delegating file approval to the
caseworker level.
Recommendation 23: That upon receipt of the new income testing guidelines, the
Division amend its approach to the delivery of the fee subsidy program, further
developing service standards and delivery policies consistent with OW division
standards.
Recommendation 24: That the responsibility and management of the delivery of

informal Ontario Works child care return to the Ontario Works Division upon the
completion of administrative changes.

4.4 ONTARIO EARLY YEARS
During site visits and throughout focus groups, when Ontario Early Years Centres was the focus
of discussion, parents consistently had smiles on their faces. Parents spoke with passion and
conviction about what this program means to them and their children. Statistics and site visits
confirm that parents use, appreciate, feel supported by and value this program. Since this
program‟s mandate is all about supporting parents this success is irrefutable.
The local historical origins of the City delivering Ontario Early Years Centres are centred on the
former Early Learning and Family Strengthening Centres initiative or ELF Centres. The
developmental process of the ELF Centres and obtaining the designation as the “lead agency”
were two processes that left some community agencies and providers feeling used and
railroaded by an autocratic City administration. Some stakeholders stated that although there
was a competitive process for the award of the lead agency, they believe the award of the Early
Years Centres was a foregone conclusion.
In reviewing information submitted through documents, focus groups, interviews and

discussions it was confirmed that the City was and remains the correct choice as the lead
agency for this program. Parents support this program in large part due to the City‟s efforts. The
City of Windsor also is unique in that very few Consolidated Municipal Service Managers sought
out the delivery of the Early Years Centre program. By becoming the lead agency the City also
received a program that each year receives diminishing funds, since there has not been an
increase in funding since the introduction of the program.
Recently, more attention has been focused on delivery of OEY services through community
satellite programs. Admittedly, the manner in which the former Social Services Department
administration conducted itself in regards to the ELF centres and Ontario Early Years Centres
has not created goodwill in many areas of the community. However, as reported by staff,
parents and agencies a more collaborative approach to planning is emerging. Additional
opportunities to partner with respect to the delivery of OEYC services and to expand available
satellite services should continue to be explored.
As with the directly operated child care centres, a conflict of interest exists that must be
managed. The conflict of interest is most apparent in the OEYC staff wages and in the lack of
common units of service. As in the municipally operated child care centres; City OEYC staff are
paid the top wages in the delivery system. OEYC City staff were recently given an annual 3%
salary increase through the new 3-year Collective Bargaining Agreement at the same time that
community providers where being told that there “is no new money” for the community operated
OEYC satellite programs. The absence of a management plan from the OEYC program
administration that demonstrates how the 3% salary increases will be managed within a finite
program fund envelope contributes to the perception that the City services itself first with
program funds and distributes remaining funds to the community providers. The fact that an
offer was not extended to community providers to request funds to increase their staff salaries
by an equivalent 3% perpetuates the inequities.
Responsibility to create a plan to manage 3% wage increases over the next three years for the
Ontario Early Centres staff does not seem to be part of this management portfolio. This is a
9.25% increase in wage/salary expenses in the third year when compared to the present
wage/salary expense. While the Children‟s Services Division management did not have direct
control over the salary/wage increase it could foresee this eventuality. In a program with finite

resources it could be assumed that this significant increase in costs should be pro-actively
prepared for and central to the program‟s ability to maintain program quality and resources.
Staff also reported a fair degree of animosity regarding the process used to hire Ontario Early
Years Centre staff. This has resulted in strained relations between OEYC staff and staff working
in the municipal centres serving as hubs. There have been perceived inequities in how staff
were selected, range of duties, difficulty of duties, etc.
From the standpoint of this review, the structural separation of Early Years Centres into a
management portfolio separate from the child care centres the programs co-locate with is
questionable. The present structure includes separate Child Care and OEYC (Family
Strengthening) supervisors who guide and direct staff at the same locations. Flexibility in the
use of ECE staff seems to be lost in the territories that this creates and has probably contributed
to the animosity.
Focus group discussions and key informant interviews all included discussion on the effects if
the municipality withdrew from delivering this service. Overall, stakeholder consensus is that
municipal management and delivery is beneficial to the community and should remain. The
reasons stated echoed those for continuing to directly provide licensed child care. However, the
City is seen as having high costs and needing to expand partnerships where appropriate and
feasible. As well, it was noted that there should be units of service created so that funding could
be equitably distributed between the internal and community providers.
Recommendation 25: That the Division develop a plan that details how salary and
wage increases as required by the new Collective Agreement will be managed over
the term of the Agreement without negatively impacting funds currently available to
community providers.
Recommendation 26: That the Division establish common units of service, common
program goals and operating policies to guide equitable funding and consistent
monitoring of all funded Early Years Centre Services.
Recommendation 27: That the management, supervision and operation of early

years centre hubs and City operated satellites should occur locally through the child
care centre supervisors to improve the effectiveness and flexibility of both
programs’ use of existing ECE staff and the seamless delivery of services as
required through Best Start.
4.5 NATIONAL CHILD BENEFIT
City staff administers the City portion of NCB savings and the Windsor Community Children‟s
Fund through a new request for proposal process. This process is managed by a Family
Strengthening Supervisor position. No identifiable, centrally driven policy process exists within
the Social Services Department to determine or justify what NCB funds should be spent by the
City to address systemic issues identified through community input. These issues are generally
beyond the scope of one agency submitting a proposal. The present structure of the request for

proposal process and management silos appear to have restricted the City from enhancing the
use of these funds for the broader community good. The lack of a centrally driven policy function
in the Children‟s Services Division has also contributed to this deficiency. Further, the delivery
and management of this program is a service system function not a program delivery function.
In summary it appears that the City has at least two additional system wide issues to address,
which could benefit from a system management driven NCB allocation. These include the
continued funding of the Work and Learn program and the creation of a Program Support Fund
to maintain and enhance the delivery of services to children with special needs in licensed child
care centres. In light of the feedback from key stakeholders, these would be initiatives that
would receive broad community support if implemented.
Recommendation 28: That the Division develop a central policy process to inform
the children’s service system management of systemic issues identified through
community input that could be addressed through the use of all program funding
envelopes.
Recommendation 29: That the delivery and management of NCB funds should be
considered a system management function.

5. BEST START
5.1 CONFIGURATION OF THE BEST START NETWORK
The Ministry of Community and Youth Services Guidelines for Best Start outline the
requirements of the Consolidated Municipal Service Manager to provide leadership in the
development of a Best Start Network. They further detail service providers that should be
considered to participate in the network.
This section outlines a recommended composition for the Windsor-Essex Best Start Network
and provides guidance regarding roles and responsibilities of network members. The model is
derived from the approach used by the Chatham-Kent and Lambton Best Start Rural
Demonstration Project, which has proven to be successful in enabling their network to make key
decisions and develop a preliminary Best Start Plan within the short timeframes established by
the Ministry.
This outline recommends a layered approach to decision making, as is the norm with most
organizational structures. It is recommended that the Best Start Network be comprised of a Best
Start Steering Committee, a Best Start Implementation Committee and Best Start Working
Groups that are developed as necessary to support implementation planning for specific
components of the overall plan. Together, these various committees, each with distinct roles
and responsibilities supporting a common goal, would comprise the Best Start Network.
Essentially the Network represents the broad community of agencies serving families and
children across Windsor-Essex, thereby ensuring all stakeholders have a voice and are
provided equal opportunity to participate in the planning process.
5.1.1 Best Start Steering Committee
The Best Start Steering Committee would be the decision-making body, providing leadership
and direction regarding the development of the overall plan. It is advisable that responsibilities
of the Steering Committee members should include, but not be limited to:
Developing the Terms of Reference for the Network and submitting a document signed by
all Steering Committee members to MCYS
Providing leadership to the development of the local Best Start Plan including the
development of a work plan
Ensuring the consideration and integration of all pertinent data and information contained in
relevant local planning documents into the local Best Start Plan
Making decisions related to the location of Early Learning and Care Hubs
Providing direction to the Implementation Committee re priorities and timelines
Reviewing and approving the plan as drafted by the Implementation Committee
Submitting the Best Start Plan to MCYS
Supporting the development of an evaluation plan
Monitoring the implementation of Best Start and supporting evaluation efforts
Collaborating and sharing information with other municipalities
Developing a conflict resolution process
Developing a communication plan
Serving as champions of the Best Start Vision within the broader community

5.1.2 Best Start Implementation Committee
The Implementation Committee would be charged with the responsibility of integrating the input
of community service providers regarding various Best Start components into a draft Best Start
Plan for consideration by the Steering Committee. As such, the membership of this group is
considerably larger than the Steering Committee as it is intended to include representation from
key stakeholders providing services to families and children 0 to 6 in the communities within the
CMSM delivery boundaries. Through this expanded membership, a broad range of community
perspectives and expertise can be gathered to inform the development of specific components
of the plan.
In many communities a variety of planning groups currently exist that provide advice and
planning expertise regarding services to families and children 0 to 6. At present, the City of
Windsor has two established Advisory Committees that support the planning and delivery of
early learning and children‟s services. The introduction of Best Start provides the City with an
opportunity to streamline and integrate existing advisory groups. It is advisable that the City
replaces the OEY Advisory Committee and the Children‟s Services Advisory Committee with
one integrated community-planning group. The mandate and purpose of the two groups are
similar and well aligned with the objectives of Best Start planning with the exception that Best
Start is currently limited to providing programs and services for children 0 to 6 years of age.
However, taking a more holistic approach to planning by expanding the mandate to include the
0 to 12 age group can only serve to enhance the planning process and the provision of
seamless services for families over the long term. It may also be necessary to augment the
membership of the amalgamated group to support Best Start planning.
When establishing the new committee and inviting participating agencies, it is advisable that the
Chief Executive Officer of participating organizations be requested to appoint an individual with
decision making authority to represent their agency.
As the Implementation Committee is intended to plan each component of the Best Start Vision
according to the guidelines prescribed by the Ministry of Children and Youth Services,
responsibilities of the Committee should include, but not be limited to:
Adhering to the Terms of Reference for the Network

Developing a detailed work plan to ensure the completion of individual plan components and
submission of plans for consideration by the Steering Committee
Reviewing all relevant planning documents and ensuring integration of pertinent data into
plan materials
Providing regular updates on progress to the Steering Committee
Discussing and capturing member input re local challenges and solutions
Discussing service gaps and possible remedies
Establishing the range of services to be delivered at specific early learning and care hubs
and developing associated budgets
Developing a draft plan for each phase of Best Start and submitting it to the Steering
Committee for consideration

5.1.3 Working Groups
As the work of the Implementation Committee unfolds, it is likely that components of the plan
that require specific expertise of a limited number of participants at the table might best be
developed by these individuals and presented to the larger group for consideration and inclusion
in the broader plan. For example, once the Steering Committee has determined the
recommended locations for Early Learning and Care Hubs, it is advisable that the
Implementation Committee establish Site Specific Working Groups that would make
recommendations regarding the variety of services needed and relative demand in specific hub
locations, and subsequently visit each site to determine available space and the need for
additional space. Further, given the early learning program will be delivered by licensed child
care providers, it may be determined that a representative group of licensed providers and in-
home licensed child care providers be established to develop a draft response to this
component as outlined in the MCYS guidelines for consideration by Implementation Committee
members.
Recommendation 30: That the Division adopt the proposed Best Start Network
structure to guide local Best Start decision-making and implementation planning.

WINDSOR-ESSEX COUNTY BEST START NETWORK
STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
General Manager of Social Services (Chair)

Executive Director of Housing and Children‟s Services
County of Essex CAO
Directors of Education of the 5 Local School Boards
Greater Essex County District School Board
Windsor-Essex Catholic District School Board
Conseil Scolaire de District du Centre-Sud-Ouest
Conseil Scolaire de District des Ecoles Catholiques du Sud-Ouest
Children‟s Rehabilitation School Authority
Medical Officer of Health
Children‟s Services System Manager (Chair of Implementation Committee)
Ministry of Children and Youth Services (Ex-officio)
Committee Support (administrative and consultant as necessary)
IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
Children‟s Services System Manager (Chair)

Manager of Ontario Early Years (1)
Ontario Early Years – Satellite Representative (1)
Superintendents of 5 Local School Boards (5 in total)
Greater Essex County District School Board
Windsor-Essex Catholic District School Board
Conseil Scolaire de District du Centre-Sud-Ouest
Conseil Scolaire de District des Ecoles Catholiques du Sud-Ouest
Children‟s rehabilitation School Authority
Public Health (1)
Children First (1)
Children's Rehabilitation Centre (1)
Preschool Speech and Language (1)
St. Clair College ECE Program (1)
United Way (1)
Recreation (1)
Mennonite Central Committee (1)
Children‟s Aid (1)
Home Child Care (1)
City – School Based Child Care Operators (1)
County –School Based Child Care Operators (1)
Parent Representatives (2)
Regional Children‟s Centre (1)
Multi-Cultural Centre (1)
Ministry of Children and Youth Services (Ex-officio)
Committee Support (administrative and consultant as necessary)

Early Learning Program
Working Group
Chaired by Member of
Implementation Committee
Representatives from Licensed
Child Care Providers
St. Clair College
Committee Support
(administrative and consultant
as necessary)
Hub Site Working Groups
Chaired by Implementation
Table Chair
Public Health
Speech and Language
School Principal
School Board Representative
Site Child Care Provider
OEYC Provider
Committee Support
(administrative and consultant
as necessary)
Other Working Groups
(as necessary)

6. APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Steering Committee Membership
Claudia McArthur - City of Windsor, Children' Services
Theresa Kralovensky - City of Windsor, Children's Services
Shannon Hyatt - City of Windsor, Children's Services
Janice Forsythe - United Way / Centraide Windsor-Essex County
Janice Mayhew - Lakeview Montessori School
Paula Brisson - St. Clair College of Applied Arts & Technology
Patti Strople - City of Windsor, Children's Services (representing Cupe Local 543)

Appendix 2: Key Informant Summary
The 10 Key Informants were as follows:
Marina Clemens, Executive Director, Drouillard Place OEYC

Audrey Fittler, Operator, County Child Care Centre
Brian Gregg, CAO, County of Essex
Shannon Hyatt, Service System Manager, City of Windsor
Teresa Kralovensky, Manager of Municipal Centres/ Family Strengthening, City of Windsor
Claudia McArthur, OEYC and NCB Manager, City of Windsor
Robbin Nevin, Child Care Centre Supervisor, City of Windsor
Jan Palamides, Executive Director, Children‟s Aid Society
Rod Pederson, Superintendent, School Board
3 Representatives from Sundowners Child Care (Executive Director, Financial Officer and Board
President)
Management and Administration of Programs
What changes, if any, have you seen in the Social Service Department‟s efforts to engage and solicit
input from providers serving families and children?
9 of 10 individuals interviewed reflected that they have recently seen a recognizable and positive shift
in the Departments efforts to collaborate and communicate with community agencies and partners
New relationships emerging
Introduction of Advisory Committee‟s including parents to collect regular input
City appears to be making much more of an effort to encourage open dialogue and growth of
community programs
Many reflected that the hiring of a General Manager has significantly improved the visibility of the
Department
Management team is more visible in the community, thus better able to understand services,
challenges and opportunities
Staff reflected that more frequent and inclusive management meetings will lead to improved planning
efforts and have a positive impact on their ability to provide appropriate supports to community
partners
What activities is the Children‟s Services Division currently performing that support agencies providing
services to families and children (i.e. licensed child care providers)?
Planning, facilitating and implementing no cost professional development and training opportunities
for the child care community (including school boards, child care operators and OEYC staff) through
partnership with St. Clair College and the Association of Early Childhood Educators of Ontario (Tri-
Community Professional Development Committee)
Sharing copies of the City of Windsor Children‟s Services Policy and Procedure Manual with other
Child Care Operators via the Supervisor‟s Network Meetings (sample templates for other providers to
adapt to meet individual centre needs)
Training on OCCMS billing system as a support to submitting monthly child care attendance records
Partnerships with the Catholic and Public School Boards benefit families and children who can
access child care and OEYC services in elementary schools – single point of access for early
learning and child care services
Source of information for children‟s services community – share research information, best practices,
brochures on other services and programs
Provide leadership through information forums to inform community re changes to government
program and policy (i.e. Best Start)
Active participants on the Child Care Supervisor‟s Network
Advocate for fair wages in the child care profession

Advocate for enhanced funding for special needs and other program areas
Deliver the Work and Learn Program – staff mentor sole support parents receiving social assistance
who are working towards financial independence
Preferred placement site for St. Clair College ECE students, accelerated students, students with
special needs and for Child Care Administrator students
Provision of in-kind space to various community groups (i.e. Essex Pre-school Speech and
Language)
Provide mentoring and field placements for high school co-op students, student 40 hour volunteer
placements and University of Windsor student placements
Fair and transparent process for access to NCB funding
Maintenance of a child care directory that includes all child care providers as information resource to
community (i.e. City website, telephone inquiries from parents sourcing care)
Changes to cash flow of fee subsidy dollars
3 of 5 external individuals noted staff‟s availability to meet with them to address operational issues,
problem-solve and provide supports in a timely fashion
What could the Division do to enhance their level of support to Children‟s Services agencies?
Continue providing leadership and advocating on behalf of early learning and child care
Continue to ensure fair distribution of services and funding between City and County
Continue expanding the system (leadership through Best Start)
Improve the transparency of the Division, its activities and budgets
Provide standard funding for delivery of core services (i.e. early years services)
Continue enhanced dialogue – keep working on developing more intense one on one relationships
with agencies based on trust
Simplify funding and process for submitting budgets
Continue access to subsidized training opportunities
Accommodate special requests from agencies, where possible
Provide additional hands-on support to new operators establishing new centres (i.e. board training,
how to establish a per diem)
Enhance communication (i.e. monthly newsletter as an information and resource for providers)
Share vacancy rates and waiting lists with other providers to support family access to available
spaces
Enhance the model for the delivery of special needs resourcing services
Enhance role in integrating additional children with special needs into child care
Step-up efforts to nurture more trusting and supporting relationships with community providers
Conduct more case conferencing on mutual clients to ensure co-ordinated effort and maximum
support
Support the implementation of „Raising the Bar‟ and work to support child care operators ability to
participate
Respond to the increasing demand for infant and toddler child care, extended hour and flexible work
schedule care, care for children with behavioural and special needs, etc.
Continue to explore opportunities for community partnerships
Describe the organizational culture within the Children‟s Services Division? (I.e. collaborative,
communicative).
The majority of individuals reported that until recently, the culture of the Department had been
autocratic, controlling and often confrontational in nature
Previous administration characterized by centralized decision making
While this approach created tension and animosity, some individuals also reflected that senior
management worked towards achieving concrete and well-articulated goals related to enhancing the
children‟s services system
Although strongly goal oriented, this particular management style led to an era of non-participation
and mistrust as community input was not sought and processes were not transparent
Nine of 10 individuals reported that there was a recognizable shift to a more collaborative approach to
working with the community

Some philosophical changes emerging – different ways and levels of collaboration
Staff reflected that internally, the culture has shifted away from micro-management to a more
inclusive and empowering environment, where program decisions have been delegated to
appropriate decision-making level
Efforts to be more inclusive are also improving morale amongst Children‟s Services staff
Despite community improvements, internally, the Division has been plagued by a lack of cohesive
goals, standardized processes and organizational practices, compounded by intermittent
communication and a lack of leadership with respect to Children‟s Services issues
Three program areas work in isolation not tied together by common and shared goals
Staff described a lack of clarity re individual managers roles and responsibilities – how are they inter-
related to common objectives
Animosity between OEYC staff and staff working in the directly operated Centres remains as a result
of perceived inequities in how staff were selected, range of duties, difficulty of duties, etc.
How does this culture support or constrain Children‟s Services delivery?
Mistrust developed over the years has resulted in reduced community agency attendance and
participation in meetings – contributions not perceived to be valued
Lack of input further degrades the system as not all ideas are gathered and the knowledge base
diminishes with less information sharing
Lack of knowledge perpetuates poor or misinformed decisions and restricts community access to
viable supports
A controlling culture made it more difficult for agencies to accessing necessary resources (i.e.
information and supports)
Staff reflected that a lack of common Divisional goals and regular structured meetings amongst
management creates tension and undermines planning efforts
Perception of conflicting goals amongst program managers (i.e. quality service delivery vs. fiscal
accountability)
Gradual culture shift to open and welcome expression of ideas and insights
Improved openness ensures providers and council receive timely and accurate information upon
which to base decisions
What changes would you make to the organizational structure of Children‟s Services to better support
program delivery and why?
4 of 10 informants reflected that they did not know enough about the current organizational structure
to comment
Mechanisms to ensure more dialogue and collaborative planning across the three management areas
should be a priority
Internal staff noted the need to have one individual held responsible for co-ordinating the budget
function
Need for streamlined billing system with enhanced communication between caseworkers approving
subsidy and finance who receive subsidy invoices from operators
The need for greater leadership through the Executive Director position
Current plans to add a Program Analyst to the staffing complement
Roles and responsibilities of fee subsidy caseworkers need to be reviewed once impact of new
income test known
Suggestions for additional staffing including: a Coordinator for Children with Special Needs to act as a
liaison between agencies and child care providers, a Coordinator for NCB/CCF funds, an OEYC
Coordinator, a Curriculum Coordinator/Developer to ensure consistent „best practices‟ across
municipally operated centres, a Data Analyst to co-ordinate data related to enrolment, expenditures,
etc.
Review roles and responsibilities of Centre Supervisors vis a vis support to Manager
Review roles and responsibilities of Coordinator of Municipal Child Care
Reinvest in clerical/administrative support to respective program areas
Additional support re financial and statistical analysis to directly operated delivery area

Eliminate Child Care Centre dual reporting relationship (Manager and Coordinator) and provide clear
direction re individual roles and responsibilities
Consider moving responsibilities for all community contracts into one portfolio
Require development of standard processes to support administration, flow of work, budget
development, variance reporting, etc.
Consider expansion of Work and Learn Program due to successful outcomes
What pending Ministry programs and policy changes do you feel are likely to have a significant impact on
service delivery and thus must be considered in the context of this review and why?
5 individuals noted that the introduction of Best Start will require enhanced community collaboration
Changes to fee subsidy eligibility criteria (needs test to income test)
Eventual introduction of College of Early Childhood Educators
MCYS Review of Children‟s Services System funding
Child Welfare Transformation (continued integration of services)
Potential claw back of NCB could affect community programming
Delivery of Licensed Child Care and Fee Subsidy
What role, if any, do you believe the municipality should have in the direct delivery of licensed child care
and why?
7 of 10 informants strongly believe that the City should continue to directly operate child care centres
1 informant reflected they did not know enough about directly operated centres to comment
2 informants believe the City has a role to manage the system but no need to directly deliver
The following issues were raised as the rationale for a continued role in direct delivery:
a strong role model for quality child care for the community (i.e. municipal standards of delivery
exceed requirements of Day Nurseries Act)
Community leader with public accountability
5 of 10 noted that the City should not need to qualify nor apologize for accessing the necessary funds
to sustain a healthy quality child care system
Directly operated centres offer stability to the child care system
Provide appropriate and fair wages for E.C.E. professionals in the community
Access to planning data regarding demographics and community need, able to project and plan to
meet required needs in locations not served by other operators
Access to leading edge research and best practices in the profession, which are subsequently shared
with community of providers
Management fulfils key role in maintaining and enhancing strong links in the early childhood field and
politically
Increased parent options/choice
Municipal centres often accept children that other operators will not or cannot accept (i.e. require
flexible and fluctuating hours of care, special needs beyond approved support facilitation funding)
Municipal centres are the preferred training and mentoring sites for St. Clair College and other
students
Working poor benefit from municipal delivery due to relationship with Ontario Works who are in turn
connected with other community agencies serving common clients
Municipal centres have proven successful as training sites for sole support parents on social
assistance (Work and Learn Program)
Links to and knowledge of Ontario Works and other agency service providers to support families and
children who need additional supports
Other agencies serving families and children who share common clients prefer working with a select
few operators vs. having to establish relationships with multiple providers
If the municipality were to discontinue the direct delivery of licensed child care what impacts (positive and
negative) would it have on the community (i.e. service providers, families)?

Positive
8 of 10 respondents did not perceive any positive impacts

2 of 10 believed that if appropriate notice was provided, other operators could expand services in
multiple sites to accommodate displaced children
1 provider believes that there is sufficient capacity in the community to accommodate all children
currently in municipal centres without a disruption in service
A reduction of municipal services would increase the funding available to purchase of service
operators to develop additional spaces
Negative
Possible reduction of available spaces across CMSM boundaries at a time when MCYS is funding
system expansion (municipality currently provides approximately 1/3 of the subsidized spaces)
Void in advocacy role and leadership amongst local community child care professionals
Possibly less stability in the system
Less networking and information sharing opportunities for child care professionals
One less role model for fair wages
Less field placements for ECE and high school students
Reduced parental choice
Less opportunities for integration of children with special needs
Less extended hour and flexible hour care options for parents
Less consistency re standards for quality care
County would require assurances that programs and services would be replicated by alternative
provider(s) and that residents would not receive less service or quality programming than they
currently receive
In your opinion does the current fee subsidy system work?
Opportunities to improve the current delivery of fee subsidy

System is complex and workload associated with ongoing case management is increasing due to
applicants with multiple and frequent changes to circumstances
Suggestions to decentralize fee subsidy application process to better support families
Inequities in eligibility for fee subsidy for families of children with special needs – some parents are
needs tested, others are not
How do families describe the fee subsidy application process, is it easy to access and customer friendly?
Would you agree with the families‟ views?
Reports from providers and families of long wait times for subsidy application appointments (avg. 2
weeks)
Many families report that the process is intrusive, cumbersome and time consuming
Families often ask agency staff for assistance in completing required forms as child care staff do not
offer this help
Need to streamline the application process to support quick access to subsidy for those entering or
re-entering the work force
Many resort to unlicensed care due to application challenges and delays in accessing space
Require access to application process during non-traditional hours (evenings or weekends)
Suggestion to combine application for transportation, as needed, with subsidy application (one stop
shopping) at decentralized locations
Majority of delays in processing applications due to required documents not being provided by
applicants
Suggestion that fee subsidy policies should be developed and consistently applied to eliminate
perceived subjectivity of decision-making
Delivery of Ontario Early Years Programs

What role, if any, do you believe the municipality should have in the direct delivery of Ontario Early Years
services and programs and why?
Eight of 10 informants reported that they believe the City should continue as the lead agency
delivering OEYC services
The remaining 2 informants believe that OEYC programs and services should be delivered by
community based agencies
City has a long history of demonstrating leadership and investing in early years – starting with
development and implementation of ELF centres, which morphed into OEYC
4 of 10 saw opportunities for additional agencies to participate/partner in the delivery of OEYC
services depending on site specific circumstances thereby creating more of a balance between
community and municipal delivery
Many of the reasons echo those for continuing to directly operate child care centres including but not
limited to:
Performance record in the development and delivery of early years services

Role as lead agency perceived as advantageous in anticipation of Best Start, as OEYC service plans
expected to be adapted and integrated with Best Start planning
Current structure ensures and facilitates integrated planning
Community leader with public accountability
Strong relationships with school board partners
Provide appropriate and fair wages for E.C.E. professionals in the community
Access to planning data regarding demographics to support comprehensive community planning
Access to leading edge research and best practices in the profession, which are subsequently shared
with other OEYC service providers
Management fulfils key role in maintaining and enhancing strong links in the early childhood field and
politically
The rationale provided for maintaining the lead role relate back to the competitive process engaged in
and the selection process used to determine the lead agency when OEYC‟s were introduced
Municipality had and continues to have the infrastructure (facilities, resources and administrative
structures) necessary to maintain and enhance the delivery of a full range of quality Early Years
Centre services
If the municipality were to discontinue the direct delivery of OEYC services what impacts (positive and
negative) would it have on the community?
Positive
OEYC budget could stretch further (additional locations, services, families served) as community
agencies overhead costs are lower than City costs
8 of 10 did not see any positive impacts
Many of the concerns echo the stated disadvantages of potentially discontinuing the direct delivery of
child care and include:
Potentially less options and access for parents if same number of OEYC centres not maintained
Fragmented delivery, budget inefficiencies (multiple admin. budgets) and difficulty maintaining
standards amongst all providers and sites
One less role model for fair wages
Lesser quality of programming if ECE‟s not delivering programming
Reduced accountability
Potentially less opportunities for integration of children with special needs
Varied interpretations of core services could heighten funding tension
Should the municipality continue to deliver OEYC programs in the future, what changes would you make
to the delivery of OEYC services to better meet the needs of families and children and why?

Expand hours of operation dependent upon need (daily, evening, weekend and summer hours to be
considered as appropriate)
Expand capital funding and materials budget for unique services
Expand programming choices based on access to information and research on innovative and best
practices in the early learning and care field (i.e. more targeted programs)
Introduce services in other needy areas
Equal funds for all programs based on a per diem or unit costs for various services
Increase in staff compensation equivalent to municipal staff salaries
Special Needs Resourcing Program
What do you see as the major challenges that child care providers are facing in their efforts to integrate
more children with special needs into licensed child care settings?
Require additional staffing support to integrate children with special needs – this support is not always
available
Limited funds for program support restrict providers acceptance of additional children with special
needs
Require more frequent case conferencing and updates on treatment plan progress/changes
Too little and too infrequent support from travelling resource teacher model
More children with pervasive developmental disorders (i.e. autism)
More children with communication disorders that are accompanied by disruptive behaviours
More children from varying cultures with additional language needs
Lack of seamless service between pre-school and school programs
Parents require more information and support
Services not readily available when space becomes available
Families do not have transportation to access services – City subsidy process for transportation fund
is separate from fee subsidy process (duplicitous processes)
Almost no supports available for providers of school based before and after school programs
What are some strategies that could be applied to overcome these barriers?
3 of 10 respondents did have enough knowledge of the models and funding to comment
Base funding combined with travelling resource teacher model
Increased number of travelling resource teachers would reduce caseloads and enhance time each
teacher spends with individual children and staff in assigned centres
Increased number of travelling resource teachers would reduce number of centre‟s assigned
therefore reduce travel time, which could be reinvested in direct programming
Reconfigure how current dollars are distributed
Ensure availability of „floater‟ resource teacher to replace staff on sick leave, vacation, training, etc. to
reduce interruptions in service to children and program staff
Providers should use a common assessment tool
Improve the process for applying for additional „support‟ funding – currently a once yearly application,
although demands fluctuate throughout the year
Explore opportunities for OEY services to help transition children into child care facilities
The City of Windsor currently funds special needs resourcing services provided through, the Children‟s
Rehabilitation Centre, individual child care centres and Children First. In your opinion, is the City getting
best value for its purchase of service dollars?
6 of 10 individuals did not believe the City was getting best value for its special needs resourcing
funds
4 of 10 did not know enough about the program, funding and delivery approaches to comment
The majority felt that the funds directed to the current travelling resource model were insufficient to
provide the level and frequency of support needed by centre staff

Most reported that the on-site resource teacher model has caseload equity flaws and is an expensive
model in a community where demand is greater than supply
Special needs resources are currently delivered by travelling resource teachers and on-site resource
teachers. Assuming no additional funds are directed towards this program area, what approach would
you recommend to delivering special needs resourcing services in the future that would best serve
families and children requiring these additional support services.
5 respondents supported the expansion of the travelling resource model suggesting that it has the
ability to service more children than alternative models
7 respondents noted the need for additional funding for support staff
2 respondents felt strongly that block funding should continue to be directed to Children‟s
Rehabilitation Centre as it was believed that this agency provides a level of support to disadvantaged
and developmentally delayed children that other centres cannot
1 respondent suggested a transition model where the most needy children receive services from
Children‟s Rehabilitation Centre, moderately needy children receive services from on-site resource
teachers and children with lesser needs be placed in centres supported by the travelling resource
teacher model
2 respondents supported the expansion of the on-site resource teacher model, but did not provide
suggestions as to where the additional funding would come from
1 respondent supported the current system

Appendix 3: Parent Focus Group Summary
1. What are the most important elements that you considered (or would consider) when choosing a child care provider?
Jefferson Storybook
Competency reputation of the Centre, word of mouth
certified ECE teachers ECE certified teachers
quality of the program quality program
Understanding that each child is unique and has individual involvement/interaction of the staff between the children/parents
needs to feel comfortable as a parent to express concerns regarding their
Centre environment, How is the Centre run? children to staff and having them follow through on their requests
safety/security safety
availability of hours flexibility/availability of hours
flexible care meal plan (nutritional value)
 low staff turn over
 cost
2. What factors if any have restricted or prevented your use of licensed child care?
Jefferson Storybook
waiting lists lack of infant spots (hard to find)
costs - having to pay for sick days consensus of group was that they would have a relative care for
rigid vacation policy (only allowed 2 weeks) child opposed to placing child in a Centre that they felt wasn‟t
Noted Inconsistencies: desirable
parent had to pay for additional time taken in order to child care used out of personal choice rather than need due to
preserve child care spot (City-run Centre) work commitment
parent took additional time but was not charged (City-  group indicated that they would place child in child care to give them a
run Centre) break if they did not work
inflexible hours
3. For those of you who have applied for assistance with the cost of child care (fee subsidy), was financial assistance easy to
access? Was the application process customer friendly?
If not, describe what changes you would recommend to improve access to fee subsidy for families that need help with the cost
of child care
Jefferson Storybook
fee subsidies are transferable between centres felt overwhelmed by the amount of information that was required
City provides a credit for fees paid in advance felt intimidated when first called to apply
Experience: would have been helpful to have been able to speak with
parent in receipt of OSAP had to pay the first month at someone prior to appointment to explain the process
the full per diem rate because decision had not yet caseworker was friendly/compassionate as well as professional
been made on application financial hardship issue due appointment accommodated parent's work schedule
to credit, system was inflexible when student remarked

that this was causing hardship
Noted Inconsistencies:
parent refused an application as combined family
income was over the $32,000 set limit
parent receives full subsidy although income exceeds
$32,000 limit
If not....
reduce wait times for applications If not....
reduce wait times for a decision on an application advertise to the community that fee subsidy is available
implement consistency in applying policies provider advised parent of subsidy and encouraged her to apply
complete six month update appointments at the Centre
4. A variety of different agencies deliver licensed child care across the City of Windsor and County of Essex. These include not-
for-profit child care centres, commercial for-profit child care centres and child care centres owned and operated by the City of
Windsor.
Describe how this difference in agencies has influenced or will influence your choice of child care provider.
Jefferson Storybook
feel that the focus should be on the children regardless of found there was not much difference in the programs offered at the
the type of Centre various centres
feel that a quality program should be provided regardless of looked at the program rather than the type of Centre
the type of Centre have to pay for sick days
do not feel that wages have a bearing on the quality of care rigid vacation policy (2 weeks)
provided
Parents would like to see more municipal money
designated for child care to provide for more quality
programming.
Not-for-Profit felt there is a higher teacher/child ratio in non-profit/municipal centres

Positive:
staffed with quality teachers
staff are encouraged to improve their skills
recognizes that environment needs to be suitable for
children and their parents
provides a quality program
able to be more flexible in policy than City-run centres (i.e.,
see transportation issue below)
less expensive per diem rates
Negative:
high turnover rate of teachers

concerned about cutbacks in order to save money at for-profit centres
for-profit centres meet the minimum requirements while not-for-
Commercial for-profit: profit/municipal centres will exceed them
Positive:
able to be more flexible in policy than City-run centres (i.e.,
see transportation issue below)
Negative:
may not have the most current developmental toys/supplies
charged additional if late picking up child
charged for sick days
charged for vacation time taken
at times poor communication between the provider and
parent
Experience:
parent not advised that there was a male staff member
who interacts with their child (i.e., changing diapers)
conflict between providing a high quality nutritional program
and making a profit
Experience:
parent paying full per diem rate but also has to provide
own food to meet child's dietary need
City Operated Centres

Positive:
like that it is a unionized environment
low staff turnover
prefer staff to be trained ECE‟s
provides a nutritional program to meet the children's dietary
needs
provides quality programs
staffed with quality teachers
Negative:
lack of flexibility in policy (i.e., see transportation issue below)
* Transportation:
Issues identified with the bussing of children from school to
their child care Centre
Experience:
parent discussed situation with centre but was advised

that that they had to make their own arrangements
no assistance offered
Arrangements made for child to be dropped off at the
bus stop located on the opposite side of the street from
a City-run Centre (Lauzon CCC). Parent advised that a
staff member was not permitted to cross the street to
accompany the child to the Centre.
parent made arrangements for child to attend a different
Centre
feel that non-City-run centres are able to be more flexible in
order to accommodate needs
would like to see the bus system co-ordinated with child
care centres and schools
would like to see more child care centres in the schools
continue and expand the Latch Key programs
For those of you who have used Ontario Early Years Centre services, which services have you found most helpful?
Jefferson Storybook
benefit to children as well as parents benefit to parents as they also allow for interaction between other
provides for social interaction for the children as well as parents
parents like that some OEY‟s are located within schools
provides a support group for parents availability of OEY‟s within different communities
structured programming feel Dad would take child(ren) to the Centre if there was a set time for
quality programming Dad's
comparable to JK program welcome relief during maternity leave especially during winter months
would like to see more centres * disappointed that some OEY‟s have limited hours during the summer
would like hours extended to include the evenings and months
weekends
centres located in schools makes for a smooth transition to
JK
* A letter of support from a parent was read to the group (3
letters received in total).
Similarly, different agencies provide Ontario Early Years Centre services. Does it matter to you who provides Early Years Centre
services as long as they meet your needs?
Jefferson Storybook
 It does not matter who operates the OEY centres as long  It does not matter who operates the OEY centres as long as the
as the quality of programming, staffing, snacks are not quality of programming, staffing, snacks are not compromised.
compromised.

Appendix 4: Special Needs Providers Focus Group Summary
1. What do you see as the major challenges that child care providers are facing in their efforts to integrate more children with special
needs into licensed child care settings?
Agency Provided Services On Site Resource Teachers
Wait lists are a major challenge have dealt with constant change over the past 5 to 8 years
Unacceptable situation for families, which is produced a demand constant uncertainty whether funding will continue for resource
that exceeds resources teachers
Lack of adequate funding within community results in lack of increase in enrolment of children with special needs
professionals to provide services constant caseload as children are discharged, new cases are
Especially lacking are speech pathologists to address speech and taken on
language needs of the child population instances where community agencies (i.e., Children's Rehab)
Children are also on wait lists for occupational therapists, have contacted centres to advise that a child is in need of care
physiotherapists, psychologista and social workers limit the abilities however upon placement, a transition plan is not provided
of the resource teachers and the early childhood educators at child
care centres  Children are becoming more challenging
Not all child care programs are willing to accommodate children  The travelling resource model does not work since it does not
with special needs given the above provide needed supports to centres
Major challenges are seen as :  No levels of service
Frequently need additional qualified staff to support the child

through routines,
On-going professional development for staff and the time and
money that that may require.
Waitlists for specialized services through Children First affect
the success of the child‟s integration experience.
Need additional funds to purchase modified teaching materials
to support the learning goals of children with special needs.
The facility may not be physically accessible with no funding
available to address accessibility issues.
2. In the absence of additional funding, what are some strategies that could be applied to overcome these barriers?
Agency Provided Services On Site Resource Teachers
need to hire more ECEs
Some strategies to overcome these barriers: in the classroom an ECE attending to a special needs child is
unable to adequately monitor the other children
- safety issue
Professional development for Early Childhood Educators provide professional development for ECEs by visiting other
provided free of charge by Children First and other community centres/schools to see how they run their programs
partners (i.e. agencies, community college, university, health look at tasks being performed by the resource teacher that could

unit, etc.). Centres provide compensation to staff with paid time be better completed by an ECE
away from the job for attending after hours workshops. o will need to monitor that ECEs time is not taken away
Community lending library of modified resource materials for from the classroom
children with special needs. provide family support person to make families aware of
services/funding that is available
o would support the centre, the program, staff and children
resource funding has not changed in the past 10 years
beneficial to incorporate job sharing with other agencies (i.e.,
Children's Rehab)
college/university to work in partnership with community agencies
ECE educational program to include training on special needs
3. Windsor currently funds two different special needs delivery models. There has been considerable debate throughout Ontario
about the benefits and disadvantages of the mobile resource teacher model in comparison to the onsite resource teacher model.
Assuming no additional funds are directed to this program area by the Ministry, what approach would you recommend to delivering
special needs resourcing services in the future that would best serve families and children requiring these additional support
services?
Agency Provided Services Centre Based Resource Teachers
 There is merit in adopting a more flexible approach to services for Group does not feel that there is a vast difference between service
children with special needs within our community provided by an onsite or mobile resource teacher
 There are some centres of excellence with onsite resource teachers there is not a competition between the two models
that have provided outstanding service for many years both recognize that each child is unique
 The decision to place a Resource Teacher at a particular site could both provide service to a variety of special needs
be determined by the complexity of needs of the children, families both are overworked, under trained and underpaid
and staff, this would require resources in addition to what Children continue with on-site resource teacher
First presently possess Mobile Resource Teacher Model:
 The effective resource teacher does not work in isolation, but draws Benefits:
on the expertise of various other disciplines provide service at the child care centre as well as in the home
Negative:
feel that insufficient time is spent with the child
not cost effective re: travel
not time effective re: travel
weather may prohibit the resource teacher from attending
appointments
lack of family involvement due to time constraints
not able to develop a relationship with the child/family
not always available to address present/urgent situations

Impact on centres without onsite resource teacher:
children may be asked to leave the centre as they are not
equipped to handle their special need
centres may not accept children as they are not equipped to
handle their special need
if involvement with Children First, worker will visit the child at the
centre once a week for 1/2 hr
centre will contact a resource teacher at other centres for
assistance to address urgent matters
possible safety issue for the child as well as the other children and
staff
no case conferencing between service providers (i.e., Children
First, resource teacher, etc.) to co-ordinate efforts on behalf of the
child
On-Site Model:
Benefits:
help and monitor how staff interact with children with special
needs
knowledgeable in speaking with parents about concerns regarding
their child‟s needs
develop a relationship with the family
provides counseling to the family
Negative:
none stated
Consensus of the group is that it is more beneficial to have onsite
resource teachers.
4. Overall, what do you consider to be the major strengths and constraints of the agency based/onsite resource teacher model?
Strengths: Strengths:
resource teachers offer ideas on how to deal with issues as they
Expertise in observation, assessment, goal setting, teaching arise
methods and teaching materials is dispersed and shared among a provides transition planning to integrate child into the school
large population of ECE‟s in the community and adds to the system
knowledge base of the general population of teachers. This, in due to some special needs it is not suitable for some children
turn, increases the likelihood of continued and improved integration to attend JK
of children with special needs. Experience:

Due to the consultation process and ongoing learning opportunities, child returned to centre as he was not ready to make the
the experience of Resource Teachers being attached to a team of adjustment to the school setting
specialists at a children‟s centre like Children First raises the bar on have been asked by the schools to accompany the parent to
quality services extended to children, families and staff in early meetings to assist with transition planning
childhood settings. have provided transportation to parents in order for them to
The greater number of Resource Teachers at an agency like attend meetings
Children First lends itself to the opportunity for continued have accompanied parents to meetings to offer support due to
professional development, peer mentoring and peer support, and literacy issues
overall problem solving is increased. The sharing of information make themselves available to the school to assist in the
and experience, assessment tools and materials broadens the bank transition (well received by schools)
of expertise. no requirement/expectation for the resource teacher to complete
Ongoing education and professional development for the greater but is done out of care for the child
community of ECE‟s and the sometimes burdensome task of ECE‟s observe the resource teacher‟s interaction with the child
addressing specific challenges and problems can be shared among and can accomplish general goals during absences of the
many rather than one or a few. resource teacher
Our program prides itself in being flexible and family-focused. We resource teachers feel comfortable with the ECEs and their
offer service outside of the regular daytime hours of the normal interaction with the child during their absence
workday, i.e. early morning or late afternoon/evening, if those times „transfer of services‟ to other children without special needs
are more convenient for families. The frequency of our visits can goal is to ensure that the children and staff are successful
be altered according to the needs presented. Experience:
The agency-based Resource Teacher has the flexibility to meet the A family moved from Oakville to Windsor, as they knew of a
needs of the child and family where the child and family are and, centre that had an onsite resource teacher.
therefore, is able to add the dimension of the family‟s perspective to
any pre-school setting.  It is onsite and provides the centre with great flexibility to respond
Families can have their needs met without being forced into a child to child‟s needs
care centre if their choice is to keep their child at home. This also  We work with children with the greatest needs
recognizes the fact that pre-school is not necessarily the most
appropriate choice for all children. Constraints:
Constraints: due to heavy caseload there is a struggle to maintain a
balance/prioritize as to which child to focus on
As the demand increases for providing supports needed in child waiting lists for other community service providers (i.e., Children
care settings, the current number of Resource Teachers at Children First)
First is continually stretched to the limits of the service they are able refer families to other community agencies and/or suggest
to provide. they obtain a referral from their family doctor to expedite the
Because the number of Resource Teachers at Children First are process (i.e., Children‟s Rehab Centre)
limited, they sometimes experience the burden of not being able to at times stress is passed on to the other staff
provide enough support to staff and children when it becomes
every child that does not „fit‟ the normal standard is referred to the
evident that integration is breaking down.
resource teacher
Time and energy is taken up by travelling rather than devoted to  No common levels of service
supporting children, families and child care staff. However, this

situation has been mitigated by the agency‟s organization of teams  No standardization of Individual Education Plans (IEP)
by geographic areas and could be further reduced with more  All work for different employers
Resource Teachers who could be concentrated in smaller  No central intake
neighbourhoods‟ boundaries.
Working with operators is like working with families in terms of
understanding their strengths and needs in developing a plan to
meet these needs, and can require a significant level of energy and
diplomacy.
5. If the agency based/ onsite resource teacher model continues, what changes would you recommend to the model to ensure all
families have fair and equal access to these services regardless of the centre their child attends?
 Children First needs more resources than it presently has, wait lists reinstate networking meetings to focus on the needs of the child
prevent the supports that resource teachers rely (i.e., centre, Child's Place)
 This would increase the amount of time or frequency of contact by programs have been merged to create Children First
visiting specialists who provide service and consultation. eliminate overlap on waiting lists for services (i.e., resource
 Every early childhood setting should have a Resource Teacher teachers and Children First)
available to staff for consultation and support. would be beneficial to have a protocol/central element in place
 The level of support should be flexible, with the option of providing to look at waiting lists for required services in order to
intense support onsite for periods of time that may require such eliminate overlaps
concentrated service. feel that agencies do not work in co-ordination with each other due
 When a Resource Teacher can be “plugged in” as needed, and to the evolution of Children's First
when parents have the option of having their child attend the situation touched on in the past but nothing came of it
program of their choice in their own neighbourhood, it can be determine level of service required for child and develop a co-
assumed that the numbers of children with special needs would be ordinated effort between service providers
spread out across the region, thus reducing the congregation of
would be beneficial to have a centralized overseeing agency
children having to travel to a child care centre to be assured of an
to ensure that resources/ programs are available to address
onsite Resource Teacher stationed there.
special needs
acknowledged that there is 'bad blood' between centres
resource teachers would work for this agency
ensure there are information gathering sessions when a child
transfers to another centre
simplify the application for program funding support (9 pages (City
form))
if program support funding denied centre has to prove that
funding request is related to a safety issue
develop common protocol/program guidelines
develop a common assessment tool/educational plan
develop guidelines for transition planning to integrate children into

the school system
feel that the City as the program manager would have to ensure
that systems are followed
6. What skill development and training courses do your resource teachers attend to ensure they acquire and maintain the skills,
abilities and knowledge required to provide high quality services?
 Resource Teachers at Children First have ongoing access to  All trained resource teachers
opportunities for skill/professional development and in-service  Dependent on individual employers and/or funding from the City of
training through peer mentoring, in-house workshops and seminars, Windsor
as well as shared learning and community presentations via brown
bag lunch sessions, etc.
 External training courses and professional conferences are
available to staff, either as initiated by staff or recommended as part
of their individual performance goals identified through the annual
performance appraisal process, these are accommodated to the
extent that funding is available

Appendix 5: Parents of Children with Special Needs Focus Group Results
1. What are the most important elements that you considered (or would consider) when choosing
a child care provider for your child with special needs?
safety
availability of resource teachers
average wait time for a resource spot is over one year
Experience:
resource teacher only frequented a centre in the county every two weeks
to expedite the process paediatrician referred child to Children's Rehab Centre (parent leaves
child at Children‟s Rehab and takes other children to an OEY centre)
family transferred to Windsor from Ottawa; as services were previously in place, child was directly
placed in a resource spot
stability
recommendation of provider received through word of mouth
adaptability/flexibility of centre to adapt a program to accommodate the needs of the child
parents feel they are listened to as they are the expert when it comes to their child
funding for special needs programming
“We waited one year, this is common”
“Luck is involved”
Kids need stability
“A good Reputation”
Flexibility
Funding
2. What factors, if any, have restricted or prevented your use of licensed child care?
insufficient child/teacher ratio
cost of service
having to pay for holidays
having to pay for sick days
some centres are flexible as child may be absent due to frequent or prolonged hospital stays
waiting list for a resource spot
spot available for child with special needs but unable to accommodate other siblings
unable to address additional medical needs of a special needs child
Experience:
spot not readily available for child so parent took a year off work so child could attend Children's
Rehab until she was two years old
'cherry picking' - centre is selective in accepting children with special needs
centre staff do not always use the same method of communication with child (i.e., sign language) as
the parent uses
no one available to progress communication between parents and the centre
Transportation
Parents will dropout of work to transport
I have to feel comfortable in the centre
JK/SK program structure is not flexible to my child‟s needs
Number of children in the program (JK/SK group to big)
Cost
In-house resource – looking for the relationship
waiting list (over one year)
space for siblings
additional medical support
centres are cherry picking
bad luck (not in the right place at the right time)
teachers not trained in communication techniques ( sign language, computer assisted)

* Children‟s Rehab has cancelled their bus service. It is felt that some children may have to leave the
program due to transportation issues - program is only two hours in length, which poses a problem for
working parents. In extreme circumstances parents may choose to quit their job in order to keep child in
the program.
3. For those of you who have applied for assistance with the cost of child care (fee subsidy), was
financial assistance easy to access? Was the application process customer friendly?
If not, describe what changes you would recommend to improve access to fee subsidy for
families that need help with the cost of child care.
front line worker was helpful; understanding; straight forward
pleasant experience
If not...
Experience:
parent advised by Children‟s Services caseworker that “we don‟t pay for „life style‟”
Parent transferred to Windsor by employer and therefore entitled to moving allowance, however it has
not yet been received. In addition, parent is also anticipating back pay however these two factors
were taken into consideration when calculating subsidy. Parent felt that they were being penalized as
funding was reduced therefore expenses for the child's special needs were not met.
Family has triplets with one special needs child. As subsidy was insufficient, mother got another job
to assist with the cost of child care. Fortunately father received additional subsidy through his
employer.
simplify forms required when applying for subsidy - complicated process
review the allowable expense ceilings as they are rigid/inflexible as child has additional special needs
expenses
The person I spoke to in the City office was fabulous
Funding should be child based, not parent based
Restrictions are barriers for parents when children have special needs
After all the forms and meetings, we were not that much ahead
I got another job to afford the CC
Ceilings are unfair, ceilings are rigid
4. For those of you with a child in a licensed child care setting; describe your overall level of
satisfaction with the special needs services provided.
Centres:
some parents have kept or are planning on keeping their child at their child care centre/Children's
Rehab as they feel that the school is not equipped to meet the special needs of their child
transportation can pose an issue for parents regardless of whether the child attends school within
the City or county
onsite resource teachers have a manageable caseload
comfortable that the centre as well as the resource teacher are aware of their child's special needs
Issues:
feel that they have to find out about services through word of mouth (information not readily provided)
feel that they receive too much of the information they do not need and not enough of the information
that they do need
OEY Centres:
over all majority felt welcomed at the OEYs
felt they were supported and staff have referred them to other services if required
* The community needs to be educated that there are children with special needs.
Experience:
upon first visit to an OEY, was greeted by staff but had no contact after arrival; child was approached

by another child who was pulled away by their mother as she did not understand that the child had a
special need, only saw that there was 'something wrong' with the child; parent has not returned
did not feel that the group was inclusive of their child
Suggestions:
OEY/centres hold information meetings/focus groups for parents
OEY provide a set drop in time for children with special needs and their parents
focus to be on a particular groups (i.e., autistic children)
post pictures of children with special needs to promote awareness/acceptance (i.e., wheelchair
athletes; disabled children)
provide platform to network (i.e., educational resources, internet groups, availability of
services/activities, fee subsidy)
Group was asked if the City organized such meetings if they would attend. Everyone indicated that they
would.
provides a support to parents
OEYC – parents of children with special needs do not feel welcome, other parents are largely
ignorant of special needs
I did not feel welcome, I never went back
It is easy for them ( OEYC staff ) to ignore my child ( one parent, who is also an OEYC staff was
surprised at the criticism, but could see how this is relevant)
They need to educate people in the community
Essex location is inappropriate (in church basement)
ECE workers need better education
You do not see pictures of children or people with disabilities in any OEYC or child care centre
5. Windsor currently funds two different special needs delivery models. There has been
considerable debate throughout Ontario about the benefits and disadvantages of the mobile
resource teacher model in comparison to the onsite resource teacher model. Which model would
you prefer and why?
prefer onsite resource teachers as they provide information on activities/services
other therapists who attend the centre may also be of assistance to their child
frequency of interaction
allows for relationship building
feel that resource teachers should spend their time doing their job opposed to helping out in other
areas within the centre (i.e., ECE, cook)
A model where the relationship between my child and the resource teacher is promoted
There is too much about what we don‟t need and not enough about what we need
6. What changes would you recommend to the way special needs resourcing services are
provided to ensure all families have fair and equal access to these services regardless of the
centre their child attends?
the sooner resources are available to the child the greater chance for success
information should be available in a number of difference languages
programs should be available year round (i.e., eliminate reduced programming during the summer
months)
programs to remain available to children after they reach the current set age for eligibility
Information about the accessibility of mainstream programs like OEYC would help
An OEYC segregated drop-in
Prefer on-site, frequency that promotes integration not just a break for ECEs
Why do resource teachers do things that are not their job?
Sometimes two teachers are needed
Program age eligibility should be developmentally based
Children‟s First ends in JK-----schools are not required to provide accommodation until Grade 1

Appendix 6: Agency and Licensed Child Care Provider Focus Group Summary
1. What changes, if any, have you seen in the Department’s efforts to engage and solicit input from agencies serving families and
children?
Agencies Serving Children Licensed Child Care Providers
Positive: attendance for pay schedule is received on a timely basis
some agencies not invited to the table previously are now being billing clerk is helpful
solicited for input (i.e., Multicultural Council) feel there is good communication between the City and providers
Negative: City is proactive (i.e., if issues are identified, the provider is
City gave the appearance of seeking input from agencies but had contacted to resolve)
in fact already made decisions (i.e., OEY program implementation) understood that the City is working out issues that have arisen
instances prior where the City has made an initial call regarding as a result of the new billing system
initiatives, agencies expressed interest but were not approached to contact with the City has been pleasant, calls are turned in a timely
participate manner
lack of leadership on the part of the City
some agencies are trying to figure out their place in regards to
child care (i.e., Children's Rehab)
agencies not informed of available funding
when a gap or concern in services is identified it is unknown
who to take it to
who is the system manager?
who should take the leadership role?
2. What activities are the Children’s Services Division currently performing that support agencies providing services to families and
children?
For the past approximate 2 years the NCB initiative has allowed new administration has allowed for open dialogue in the hopes of
for collaboration between the City and community agencies, developing relationships that are collaborative and trustworthy
however has been the only opportunity for agencies to express a group agrees that there are positive changes taking place
need feel the City is attempting to be transparent in their dealings with
agencies concerned that NCB funding could cease at any time providers
and question whether we, as a community, are in a position to departmental County caseworkers send letters to providers
carry on this initiative without the funding advising of changes in parental circumstances
concern expressed that there are various individuals (new assists centres in policing parents
immigrants, disability pension recipients, etc.) who are not in would be helpful if City workers advised providers of same
receipt of NCBS and are therefore not able to apply for departmental County caseworkers send copies of letters to
assistance providers that are sent to parents (i.e., termination letters)
administration of the Windsor's Community Children's Fund assists centres in policing parents
(formerly Mayor's Children's Fund) would be helpful if City workers sent copies of letters to
although the City makes a recommendation, the Committee providers that are sent to parents (i.e., termination letters)

makes the final decision
3. What could the City do to enhance their level of support to Children’s Services agencies?
greater onus to show accountability identify money deposited into a provider‟s account
they should be held to a higher standard notification is not always received in a timely manner (i.e., pay
improve level of trust with community agencies by following equity, fee subsidy)
through on what they say they will do make deposits on assigned dates
reinstate networking meetings between City and community provide notification if deposits are going to be late (i.e.,
agencies deposits received months after the expected date)
City stopped dialoguing approximately 3 years when the advise as to whose role is what/with whom does the responsibility
former Commissioner of Social Services retired (position was lie
left vacant for approximately 2 years), also issues due to the a City contact person and/or a networking group would be
Corporate restructuring beneficial to address procedural/operational issues
advise agencies of upcoming events/community initiatives Experience:
send invitations/notice in a timely manner City advises providers of decisions made regarding issues rather
communicate the process in a clear and timely manner than entering into discussions (i.e., Social Services amalgamation
allow agencies to be a part of identifying special needs evaluation with the county)
indicators appreciated that Matt Pavelich with the City's Children's Services
address barriers (i.e., language, transportation, culture) which unit called various centres to solicit their feedback on the new
affect programs (OEY, Work & Learn) billing system and how they were dealing with the resulting
changes
feel that the City needs to become more transparent
feel City is not transparent as to how they run their own centres
(i.e., OEY)
feel there are still core people who are „in the know‟ but not
advising others (i.e., wage subsidy restructure - decision made
without consulting/advising others)
providers feel they are powerless that changes will be made
regardless of their input
providers ask that they be treated fairly and with respect
focus is needed on communication with open dialogue between the
City and providers
to solicit input from providers
simplify process for providers to apply for special program funding
and/or per diem rate increases
feel the City asks for information that is not relevant to the
support the request (i.e., number of staff, wages, etc.)
feel information provided on financial statements is sufficient to
support the request

there is the understanding that the City is the CMSM and therefore
accountable for their decisions
provide consistency in time frames for allowing per diem rates
increases
unreasonable time frame in notifying of rate increases
advise providers of initiatives/call for proposals (i.e., NCB)
feel there is an 'inner circle' of providers with other providers
are on the 'outside'
advise providers of availability of funding (i.e., Health & Safety)
provide sufficient time frames to apply for funding
Experience:
provider advised of funding two days before the deadline
streamline processes between OW and Children's Services
caseworkers regarding child care issues
City to understand/appreciate that they buy into a centre and their
policies when they purchases services from a provider
City to solicit input from the community relative to initiatives and
their impact on the community
Fee Subsidy:
inconsistencies between caseworkers allowing for various items
and variation in allowable ceilings
feel the level of service is dependent upon the individual
caseworker (some are more proficient than others)
feel that providers should be solicited for input as to the parental
situation/needs
Example:
parent had a previous unpleasant experience applying for subsidy
so decided to remove child from child care for summer months so
they would not have to deal with subsidy office
Child Care Waiting Lists:
Children's Services maintain a central waiting list
to outline supports that are available to the community
provider supports noted in the information presently collect by
the City of Windsor
feel City fills their own spots first before referring parents to other
providers
4. What role, if any, do you believe the municipality should have in the direct delivery of early childhood development programs and
services (i.e., licensed child care and Ontario Early years) and why?

feel there is no distinction between the City or community run OEY group feels that there is a conflict with the City administering the
centres funds and operating their own centres
families are pleased with the services/programs feel City gives funding to its own centres before giving to other
feel that there should be more culturally diverse staff within City providers
child care centres feel City sets guidelines for providers but either breaks them or
feel there is a lack of disabled workers within the City child care doesn't follow them themselves
centres
no need to hire new staff due to long term employees
agencies have foreign trained ECEs (credentials not
recognized in Canada)
staff attend the accelerated ECE program through the Multicultural
Council
feel there are services missing for parents to attend outside of the
child care setting (i.e., Ready Set Go!, Multicultural Council, OEYs)
Resource Teachers
Presently two models in place
onsite
mobile (travelling)
recognized issues with both models
no funding increase in the last 10 years
groups feels that resource teachers are essential to address
special needs
Onsite Resource Teachers:
Positive:
allows for early intervention
provides immediate response to issues
provides consistency to the child and their family
„skills transfer‟ as resource teachers are a benefit to other children
who are not referred
ECE can bring to the resource teacher‟s attention any
problems/issues they perceive
can collaborate with community agencies on behalf of the child
Negative:
at times resource teachers are pulled to complete duties other
than their own (i.e., ECE, cook)
Mobile Resource Teachers:
Positive:
in-home interaction
can collaborate with community agencies on behalf of the child

Negative:
issue with time restrictions as time spent with children is on a
limited basis (i.e., one time per week)
possible issues with miscommunication due to lack of continuity
issues identified years ago by St Mary's Family Resource
Centre but were not acted upon
5. If the municipality were to discontinue the direct delivery of children’s services such as licensed child care and OEYC services,
what impacts (positive and negative) would it have on the community (i.e., service providers, families)?
feel there is a conflict of interest on the part of the City to Positive:
administer funding as well as implement programs more money for child care
Health Unit had to cease being a service provider when they cheaper per diem rates
took over the responsibility of overseeing the CCAS Impact on the Community:
feel the City has the upper hand when hiring staff unknown
able to pay higher wages Impact on Parents:
certified staff (i.e., ECEs, cooks) uncertainty of availability of child care spots
perception that the municipality has the power to open doors that uncertainly as to who is running the centre
other centres could not uncertainty as to the quality of service/program
should the City cease to provide services it would be the uncertainty as to the quality of care
responsibility of the community to ensure that a high quality of care Negative:
is maintained impact on City staff (i.e., loss of jobs)
Positive: possible decrease in qualify of staff
loss of perception of a conflict of interest on the part of the City decline in staff wages (City staff wages sets the benchmark)
benefits private child care providers
more money available
lack of wage competition
reduced per diem rates
more infants/toddlers to receive child care
greater availability of resources teachers to service children
with special needs
Negative:
decline in staff salaries (wages paid by City sets a benchmark)
possible decline in quality of care/service (i.e., was the case in
Halifax as they no longer operated centres but oversaw them)
decline in staff retention
lack of continuity between staff and children/families
sends a negative message to the community should the City no
longer provide child care
some centres may refuse children with special needs as they may

be disruptive to their program/centre
they would have to develop a program to meet the needs of
the child
private centres can refuse care and the City cannot
intensifies any gaps that currently exist
*There would be a need to provide:
professional development for staff
better wages
common assessment standards (measurement tool) for resource
teachers
*There would be a need for:
Council needs to be committed to child care
community to determine how services are delivered
develop a strong allegiance between parents/government
(provincial/municipal)
schools to train service providers
collaborate effort by all stake holders
right mix exists now however there are also gaps
forum needs to exist to address the gaps
6. What do you see as the major challenges that child care providers are facing in their efforts to integrate more children with special
needs into licensed child care settings?
Licensed Child Care Providers
no mechanisms in place to assist providers when the City refers a child with special needs
Experience:
City referred child to provider (SKA:NA) but did not advise of the child's special needs as child had not yet been formally diagnosed; after
accepting the child the provider learned that he had previously been at five other centres; provider not staffed with a resource teacher
therefore had to make contact with appropriate community agency to assist
providers are reluctant to take referrals from the City as the child has usually gone through a number of other centres
resulted in additional stress to child/family, centre staff
7. Windsor currently funds two different special needs delivery models. There has been considerable debate throughout Ontario
about the benefits and disadvantages of the mobile resource teacher model in comparison to the onsite resource teacher model.

children should be placed in centres that can provide the best supports to meet their needs
there needs to be a co-ordinated effort on the part of community agencies (i.e., Children's Rehab, on-site resource teacher, Children First)
move to a centralized model with services whose ideal is where the provider, applicable community agencies and the family meet to discuss
the child's needs and develop a service plan
in addition to the services of a resource teacher develop a support worker position
Although SKA:NA does not have an onsite resource teacher they do have a support worker who has met with great success overseeing
The Holistic Life Cycle Achievement Program. This is a support program, which focuses on the family as a whole. At the present time
the ECE curriculum does not support the needs of families however centres would benefit from the training of a support worker.
Children First
waiting list for service
children who have gone through intake still have to wait to be „picked up‟ for services
child placed on another waiting list for services
resources/services should be assigned once child has gone through intake (i.e., behavioural consultant, mobile resource teacher)
there is no service agreement between Children First and the provider
8. Given present levels of support from the special needs resourcing program, is your agency able to accommodate additional
children with special needs?
where a need is presented, providers will use the resources within their means to meet that need
parents need to provide more information regarding the special needs of their child (some parents deny, refuse to acknowledge or even
realize that their child has special needs)

Appendix 7: Staff Focus Group Summary
1. Over the recent past, there have been some significant changes to the management structure
of the Social Services Department. What changes, if any, have you seen in the Department’s
efforts to engage and solicit input from agencies serving families and children?
centres work closely with other community agencies:
Health Unit conducts workshops approximately once a month on a specific topic (i.e., pool safety)
literacy program is promoted through the Library however program is dependent upon funding
therefore is not offered on a consistent basis
'Talk to Me' program through Children's First
centre staff identify need and refers to appropriate agencies/services
 Work with libraries, work with health unit
 “Talk to me” program, to id –screen potential speech development issues
 library depends on literacy grants, off and on
2. What activities are the Children’s Services Division currently performing that support agencies
providing services to families and children (i.e., licensed child care providers)?
City connecting with the community by opening OEY centres in child care centres and schools
accommodates evening appointments for fee subsidy
provides a literacy based programming to promote literacy
provides development screening and intervention when required
centres are clean, bright and well maintained
centres allow for children visit seniors program (benefit to the children and seniors)
staff are mentors to work & learn parents and ECE/co-op/high school students
in addition to mentoring regular responsibilities also need to be performed
 Families benefit from OEY and trust programs
 This has allowed OAEY to help families develop trust in child care
 Municipal centres get return business, parents come back
 OEY connect families with services, help to make agencies more personable therefore more
accessible
Work & Learn Program:

average age of participants is between 18-30 years
placements accepted at centres
placements paid through grants
3. What could the City do to enhance their level of support to Children’s Services agencies?
hire more caseworkers
currently high turnover rate for caseworkers (staff filling positions on a temporary basis)
Share expertise such as nutrition programs and cooks experiences
4. What advantages are derived by the Community as a whole when the City is involved in directly
delivering child care services (licensed child care and OEYC services)?
City-run Centres:
centres staffed with experienced, quality, well-trained staff (community college placement of choice)
retained staff providing consistency to children and families
provides a quality program
JK/SK teachers can identify children who have been exposed to early learning
provides a nutritional program
provides freshly prepared meals
results in healthier children as they meet the child's dietary needs
connection with school boards
consistency in enforcing policies
trained staff can identify development issues
staff are well paid
strict H/R hiring procedure

temporary staff need to prove themselves in order to be called back
Examples Sited:
families no longer in need of child care as child in school but returned due to birth of another child
families who had left a centre to go to another non-City run centre returned due to the staff/program
OEY Centres:
positive community response
beneficial to children and parents
children and parents develop a trust/bond resulting in a positive outlook regarding child care
centre connects families with available community services
staffed with experienced, quality, well-trained staff
staff have worked in child care centres therefore are familiar with programs
Suggestions:
institute networking meetings with various staff in order to connect with their counterparts from other
centres within the community
have parents make the Mayor and Council aware of the quality of programs/services provided at the
City-run centres (i.e., share their individual stories)
Council visit centres to increase awareness of the services being provided
provides valuable services to children and their families that will be pay for itself on a monetary as
well as social level (i.e., will improve the local economy in the long run)
developmental issues identified early which results in a cost savings to the education/criminal/social
systems as well as social assistance programs
bring to their attention the savings through the Work & Learn program
 City administration creates problem, no cash policy, only accept payment by debit or cheque
 Child care is so expensive it often exceeds parents debit card limits
 CC do not provide parents with a receipt and invoice, it is all done verbally which leads to obvious
conflict
 Only hand written receipts are offered
 No consistency, billing is different from centre to centre
 Arrears are woefully behind due to OCCMS
 County centres are using the old system, something new is supposed to be on board soon
 Fee subsidy system ceilings continue to create difficulties for families, ceilings raised recently
 No waiting list, use ministry guidelines but no written policies
 This leads to inconsistencies, 2 workers in room were approaching out of work-looking for work
differently
 Up to two week wait for appointment
 Supervisors adjudicate for the second signature
 Inconsistencies on documents requirements, in City no decision until all documentation is in, in
County you have up to 10 days to provide documents
 “They are all liars”, even though if in arrears you do not get a new spot
 low income parents not in receipt of OW should get buss pass assistance to assist with travel to and
from day care centres
5. Conversely, what are the disadvantages of direct delivery?

lack of teacher/staff support issues
could result in loss of quality service
demographics dictate centre locations (some centres could close but new centres could open)
goal is 100% capacity - there are more children with developmental/emotional needs
not enough spaces
not enough resources
 Parents are charged according to enrolment-continue to allow for “as required scheduled, other
providers do not have this flexibility
 We are here to bond the community

 High quality ECE staffed program provides lots of flexibility to parents
 College placement of choice
 Top-notch nutrition allows for innovative approach to meals in non-traditional hours and non-
traditional diets (i.e. Vegetarian, non-pork etc.)
 Before school kids get breakfast
 Provide spaces for evening appointments for fee subsidy
 Deliver ages and stages
 Promote literacy base
 Operate work and learn
 Mentor ECE students, co-op students, high school students
 Takes kids to senior programs
 Connections with school boards
 JK/SK teachers know we deliver quality, greater likelihood we have screened development issues
 Hiring process insures a professional staff
Everyone wants our jobs since the are good paying
6. What changes would you recommend to improve access to fee subsidy for families that need
help with the cost of child care?
review the allowable ceilings for expenses (NOTE: ceilings recently raised)
Process:
individual calls for an appointment
can be up to a two week wait
that same day the applicant is sent a list of documentation required for the appointment
if all information is available at appointment the case can be written up and submitted to the
Supervisor that same day
if all information not available application cannot be finalized until submitted (applicant advised
that they have 10 days to submit outstanding information, however leeway allows for up to one
month to submit)
applicant advised of the decision the following day
* in cases where there are outstanding arrears the application cannot be approved until the arrears are
paid or repayment arrangements are made
Policy:
if a parent is laid off their child care spot is secure for up to three months while they look for another
job
Noted inconsistencies:
County caseworker enforces this practice however will review case on an individual basis
City caseworkers do not strictly enforce this practice -)
there is no time limit for OW participants who have been laid off - their child care spot is secure
if they are having difficulty securing another job, they will be referred to the HRDC, community
agencies/resources or upgrading of education/skills, etc.
* It is unknown if there is a written policy regarding subsidy time frames for holding child care spots.
Ministry guidelines are being used however each case is looked at on an individual basis, which allows
for inconsistencies.
 Consistent policies
 Less wait
7. What changes, if any, would you recommend to positively impact the way the Division is
structured and manages and delivers services?
provide a discount for City staff using the centres
provide a discount to families with more than one child enrolled at the centre
increase allowable vacation time (current policy is 2 weeks)
discontinue the practice of billing for holidays
implement an "as required care schedule" (flexible hours)
provide assistance with transportation (i.e., bus pass, gas vouchers, cab fare may be an allowable

expense payable through NCBS)
Billings:
policy is cash/debit only
o no cheques
receipts of hand-written
* A new billing system (Ontario Child Care Management System (OCCMS)) was implemented effective
January 1, 2005
- arrears still outstanding on the old billing system
Suggestions:
consistency is needed between the centres
some centres bill for services that other centres do not
 Everyone in children‟s services is paid less for the similar jobs despite joint job evaluation
Council could visit sites

Daycare 2005

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Daycare 2005

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Appendix A

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF WINDSOR

SOCIAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT

City of Windsor Children‟s Services System Review 2

Protected Under Joint Copyright

City of Windsor Children‟s Services System Review 3

The goals and objectives of the review were defined as:

A lack of consistent strategic leadership within the Division

City of Windsor Children‟s Services System Review 4

City of Windsor Children‟s Services System Review 5

The following are the recommendations presented by this report.

Recommendation 2: That the Manager portfolios be realigned to clearly separate

Recommendation 3: That all Divisional job descriptions be updated and that

Recommendation 4: That all Divisional management staff receive financial

Recommendation 8: That the Division conduct a comprehensive business review

City of Windsor Children‟s Services System Review 6

Recommendation 11: That management staff be required to develop a plan that

Recommendation 13: That a management function be designated to manage child

Recommendation 15: That the Division co-ordinate a staff exchange program

City of Windsor Children‟s Services System Review 7

Recommendation 24: That the responsibility and management of the delivery of

City of Windsor Children‟s Services System Review 8

Recommendation 27: That the management, supervision and operation of early

City of Windsor Children‟s Services System Review 9

1.2 Purpose, Goals & Objectives

The goals and objectives of the review were defined as:

City of Windsor Children‟s Services System Review 10

Figure 1: Municipally Funded Children Services System Summary

Program Description Annual

1.3 Manager Interviews

City of Windsor Children‟s Services System Review 11

1.4 Site Visits

1.5 Best Start Impacts

City of Windsor Children‟s Services System Review 12

City of Windsor Children‟s Services System Review 13

2.1 A COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM OF SUPPORTS

2.1.1 Municipally Operated Centres

City of Windsor Children‟s Services System Review 14

City of Windsor Children‟s Services System Review 15

City of Windsor Children‟s Services System Review 16

The combined annual budget for both programs is $9,560,765.

2.1.3 Special Needs Resourcing Program

City of Windsor Children‟s Services System Review 17

Other Important Data:

City of Windsor Children‟s Services System Review 18

Amerhertsburg Child Care Centre

Directly operated satellite programs are located at:

 General Brock School

Other satellite programs are provided by:

Drouillard Place Ontario Early Years Satellite

2.1.5 Wage Subsidy

City of Windsor Children‟s Services System Review 19

2.1.6 Work and Learn

2.1.7 National Child Benefits Savings

City of Windsor Children‟s Services System Review 20

A review of current services and delivery model approaches

3.1 KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS

3.1.1 Management and Administration of Programs

City of Windsor Children‟s Services System Review 21

3.1.2 Delivery of Licensed Child Care

City of Windsor Children‟s Services System Review 22

3.1.3 Fee Subsidy

3.1.4 Delivery of Ontario Early Years Programs